1951-06-25

[Stage Direction]
- Twelfth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from Mr. P. H. Spaak, president of the consultative assembly of the Council of Europe, inviting this parliament to send observers to the session of the council, commencing the 24th September next.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Was any amount advanced to George T. Davie and Sons Limited by the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the purpose of enabling the first named company to complete and to deliver ships to the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited? If so, what was the total advanced?
2.	How much of this amount has been repaid?
3.	What was the date of such payment?
4.	Has any amount been written off?
5.	If so. how much, and what was the date of such write-off?
6.	Did the government take a first mortgage on the shipyards of George T. Davie and Sons Limited? If so, for what principal amount?
7.	Does the government still hold the said mortgage?
8.	If so, how much is owing on the said mortgage for (a) principal: (b) interest?
9.	If not, when and for what consideration was the said mortgage released?
10.	Is the firm George T. Davie and Sons Limited, or any successor thereto presently engaged on any shipbuilding contracts for the government?
11.	If so, when were these contracts awarded, what vessels are covered by each contract, what is the cost to the government of each vessel, and what will be the profit to the company under each contract?
12.	Who are the directors, and who are the majority shareholders of the firm with whom the contracts referred to in part 10 hereof were entered into?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Yes. The government, acting through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, undertook to provide George T. Davie and Sons Limited with any deficiency in its working capital necessary to enable it to complete and deliver three ships to the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited. The maximum aggregate at any one time of the amounts so advanced was $1,011,187.
2.	$481,187.
3.	At various dates during the currency of the advances, $371,500; on July 7, 1950, $59,687; on September 6, 1950, $30,000; on April 30, 1951, $20,000.
4.	Yes.
5.	$450,000, as of November 2, 1949.
6.	Yes. For $1,450,000.
7.	Yes.
8.	(a) $80,000; (b) nil.
9.	Mortgage not released.
10.	Yes.
11.
Date of Contract
Feb. 16, 1950 Nov. 9, 1950 Nov. 9, 1950 Jan. 31, 1951
June 8, 1951
Estimated
Vessel Covered	Cost to
Government
1 gate vessel	 $500,000
1 influence type minesweeping vessel	 925,000
1 gate vessel	 500,000
Production of working drawings, et cetera,
for gate vessels	 25,000
1 loop layer basic type	J.	craft	 700,000
The amount of estimated cost to the government includes cost of labour, material and overhead plus a fee of five per cent of the total thereof payable to the company. The amount of the actual profit to the company under each contract cannot be determined.

Questions
12. The directors of George T. Davie and Sons Limited are Andre Delagrave, Brenda Delagrave and Maurice Paquet. The majority shareholders of the company are not known.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Wright:: 1.	How many rural mail routes were in operation in each province of Canada on (a) June 1, 1946; (b) June 1. 1951?
2.	What were the number of boxes on these routes in each province on the above dates?


Mr. Rinfret:: 1 and 2.
Number of Number of Rural Routes	Boxes
(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)^Postal District	1946	1951	1946	1951Vancouver ....	. 112	140	21,095	33,440Edmonton 	. 165	169	9,369	10,059Calgary 	. 82	78	4,240	4,409Saskatoon 	. 119	115	4,731	4,563Moose Jaw 	. 55	49	1,920	1,828Winnipeg 	. 149	154	8,719	9,933London 	815	821	65,705	73,393Toronto 	. 573	580	43,863	53,892North Bay . .. .	. 99	118	4,904	7,053Ottawa 	. 689	700	42,695	44,020Montreal 	. 718	751	42,598	52,113Quebec 	. 503	674	27,370	42,927Saint John ....	. 349	359	14,265	19,325Halifax 	245	284	11,543	17,707Charlottetown .	. 177	178	9,232	10,244
*Rural mail delivery statistics are kept by postal districts instead of provinces.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	How many boards or agencies are in existence now or have been in existence since January 1, 1946, which have paid any form of market or production subsidy to, or given any form of capital assistance to, industrial manufacturers?
2.	What is the name of each such board or agency?
3.	What is the total that has been paid to recipients in each province by each such board or agency since January 1, 1946, or since the date of establishment of the board or agency if established after that date?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other communications since January 1, 1949, and to date, in connection with the nine ships built for the Ming

Sung Industrial Company Limited and/or its Canadian subsidiary, by the St. Lawrence Metal and Marine Works and Davie shipbuilding company, which have passed between the government of Canada and (1) the said Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited and/or its Canadian subsidiary, or on behalf of either of said companies; (2) the Davie shipbuilding company or any of its officers or other persons on its behalf.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the passing of the order; but, for reasons which will be obvious, the correspondence asked for is voluminous, a good deal of it being of a purely routine character in relation to the contract referred to. I had a word with my hon. friend, who, I understand, will be quite prepared to examine the original correspondence and indicate which portion of it he desires to have copied and produced in accordance with the order.


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the
remarks made by the Minister of Finance.



MING SUNG INDUSTRIAL COMPANY


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other communications which, since January 1, 1949, and date hereof, have passed between any department of the government of Canada and any official of the government of Hong Kong, relating to exemptions granted to the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited, under both the Canadian and British shipping acts of the said company.


Mr. St. Laurent:: There is no objection on the part of the government to the production of these papers, and the usual courtesy application has already gone forward to the government of Hong Kong for its consent. The trade commissioner there was asked to make dispatch in getting an answer from the government in Hong Kong.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it be possible to have it before the end of the week?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope so. As I say, the commissioner was asked to make dispatch in getting an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), while I was out of the city, asked a question which was directed to the Prime Minister, about a shortage of salt in Newfoundland.

My advice from the chairman of the Newfoundland fisheries board is that some shortage did exist, but its extent was exaggerated. In a wire from him this morning he confirms that there is no shortage at present. I am informed that in some localities in these bays, fish had struck into the shore traps earlier than usual. In some areas the local merchants had not adequate supplies on hand, and in trying to effect a quick distribution of salt to these areas the shortage of small boats for transportation delayed supplies. My information this morning is that stocks are generally ample and well distributed geographically, through the action of the trade itself. In other words, there is no general shortage of salt in Newfoundland at the present time. There is difficulty in getting it from one place to another as speedily as they would like, but other supplies are coming in gradually.



STATEMENT OF MR. MALIK AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR CEASE-FIRE AND ARMISTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: In view of the extremely
important statement made by Mr. Malik on Saturday and since the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who is in London, has commented on that statement in London, is the Prime Minister in a position to make any comments that would enlighten the house as to the attitude of the government toward this statement? May I say that I am not pressing for any statement, my question being prompted only by the fact that comments had been made in London by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that some newspaper men in London put certain questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to which he replied. I have not had time to consider the replies carefully because I received the clippings just as I came into the house. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State for . External Affairs, like all the rest of us, regards that statement as an important development. It is one with which the United-Nations will no doubt be dealing expeditiously, and I think it might perhaps be convenient to put on the record of this house the statement made by the secretary general, Mr. Trygve Lie, which was in the following form:
In recent weeks, the qualified spokesmen of many' of,-the governments "whose forces are participating in the United Nations action in Korea, and I, as
Inquiries of the Ministry secretary general, have expressed hope for a military cease-fire in Korea in the vicinity of the 38th parallel. The delegate of the U.S.S.R., deputy foreign minister Jacob A. Malik, now has also expressed his hope for such a cease-fire.
The United Nations forces have been fighting in Korea to uphold peace and security under the United Nations charter. From the outset, the United Nations have made it clear again and again that the first step to the restoration of peace in Korea must be a cease-fire. Such a cease-fire should involve only the military arrangements necessary to stop the fighting and to ensure against its renewal.
I urge that negotiations for a military cease-fire now be entered into at the earliest possible date.
If such a cease-fire can be attained, the political issues involved in the restoration of peace and security in Korea can then be appropriately discussed in the competent organs of the United Nations.
I am further informed that Mr. Entezam, president of the general assembly, and also chairman of the good offices committee, has come from Washington to New York in order to be in touch with the representatives of the United Nations there and to take such immediate action as may be appropriate and to do so in the hope that this is a statement of a real desire to see a cease-fire and a withdrawal of opposing troops on either side [DOT] of the 38th parallel brought about at once.
I think hon. members would be interested to know that among the clippings I got was one referring to a radio broadcast in the capital of communist China reporting this statement of Mr. Malik and an editorial saying that if America was willing to stop the war she should bring in at once those just and reasonable measures for peaceful settlement which have been repeatedly proposed by the people's republic of China, the Soviet union, and other countries desiring peace.
Of course that statement was along the same line; even Mr. Malik's statement was much along the traditional line of having about fourteen minutes of violent vituperation and then a half a minute in which to make the statement that he thought the problem of armed conflict in Korea could be settled - at this time. That is the usual manner in which such proposals are put forward by the U.S.S.R., but we have had former experience of their violent vituperation having been followed by something which was really serious and intended to be effective. I hope this may prove to be another such example.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister, may I join in the hope which'he has expressed, and I am sure every Canadian will join with me. In view of the important part that Canada is bound to play in any discussion which takes place, and the desirability of achieving such a measure of

Inquiries of the Ministry unanimity as may be possible in this house, no matter what our views may be on other subjects, I urge the Prime Minister to keep us fully informed as to the developments, subject of course to such terms of secrecy as necessarily are associated with extremely important considerations of this kind.
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the statement by Mr. Malik was hardly designed to make an impression of sweet reasonableness; nevertheless on this anniversary of the attack in Korea, I think we should bear in mind that the Russians have backed down on other occasions-as they did in Greece; as they did in Azerbaijan; as they did also in connection with the airlift to Berlin. Certainly I think all of us will hope that this is not merely a part of a sham peace campaign, but a genuine offer to terminate hostilities, which can certainly benefit no one, and which, if terminated, may be the beginning of a period during which, by the combined strength of the free nations, we may attain the measure of security for which we are all hoping.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I may add that this morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs is conferring with Mr. Herbert Morrison, the United Kingdom foreign minister, and that our ambassador in Washington was in touch yesterday and is in touch today with the Secretary of State there. The language of this declaration is being carefully scrutinized, and there is no indication anywhere that it will be brushed off. It will be explored with a sincere desire, at least on our side, to have it produce some results.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate the members of this group with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The statement made on Saturday by Mr. Malik is one of exceeding importance, and whether or not its purpose is propaganda, the United Nations should now have sufficient experience, if that is the intention, to turn it back on the Soviet union. But perhaps its purpose is not propaganda. We should and do welcome the statement made by the secretary general of the United Nations. It must be the earnest hope of everyone that a cease-fire order may be possible. Once a cease-fire order is made, it is doubtful that the fighting would begin again.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the
[Mr. Drew.)

Minister of Agriculture. Have there been any acceptances by persons approached to act as a committee of experts with respect to the matter of the economic feasibility of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps I might answer that question. There have been confidential approaches, and I expect to have information today from our ambassador in Washington.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 399, respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the railway of the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I propose making a statement. I thought I might make it in committee, unless there is some objection.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think that would be convenient. I have one question at this stage. I should like to ask the minister whether he proposes to do what was done in the other place, namely, refer the bill to a committee other than the committee of the whole?


Lionel Chevrier: I was hopeful that we could dispose of it in committee of the whole. j


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second1 time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Authority to purchase railway of the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.
Lionel Chevrier: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand it, under some arrangement Canadian National Railways have been using the first twenty-five miles from Quebec on the way to Murray Bay. Will the minister say under what arrangement it has been using it in the past, whether on a basis of rental or otherwise?


Lionel Chevrier: The arrangement was what is known as an "interline carrier" arrangement. That means that if the freight rate is $1, let us say, for an article moving over the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company line, and the freight is carried three-quarters of the distance over the line of that company, seventy-five cents will go to the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company and twenty-five cents to the C.N.R. It is pretty difficult to give the arrangement in detail, but I understand it is a common arrangement entered into between railways. When traffic is carried by one railway over the line of another, whether the traffic originates on that line or
Canadian National Railways whether it comes from other lines, the interline carrier arrangement is one which is pretty much standard between railways.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that under the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company there was a separate unit known as the Montmorency unit, and that it showed a special operating result of its own. Could we be informed what that result was?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The income account I have before me for the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company, covering the period from 1946 to 1950, indicates net corporate income of approximately $115,000 per year. To be more explicit, the figures are:
1946		 $120,451
1947		 187,681
1948		 116,189
1949		 36,086
1950-	 103,365


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am a little puzzled by these figures, because I notice that in the other place the figures given were: 1946, $236,000; 1947, $301,000; 1948, $230,000. They are substantially different from the figures given by the minister. Is there some adjustment that has to be made? Just let me add that on the face of it, with the figures one has here, it is surprising that the company should have wished to sell for $750,000 if actually they were making $300,000 a year, and I wondered if there was some explanation.


Lionel Chevrier: Although I have not read the Senate report, the figures given by my hon. friend are accurate. The figure for 1948, $230,996 is before charging depreciation. Depreciation charged for that year was $114,807, leaving a net corporate income of $116,189,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that a feature of this arrangement is the acquisition of certain rolling stock and other equipment. Is there a figure at which that is valued? I understand it is diesel equipment. How will that fit in with the steam operation of the national line?


Lionel Chevrier: It is also electrically operated. There are 144 pieces of equipment owned by the railway, one of them being a steam locomotive and six being electric locomotives. I have the statement broken down as between locomotives, passenger cars, freight cars and other cars.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just the total.


Lionel Chevrier: The total is 144 pieces, including 7 locomotives, 39 passenger cars, 88 freight cars and 10 other cars.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I meant the total value of the equipment.

Canadian National Railways


Lionel Chevrier: The estimated cost of the equipment at present day prices is $3,775,000, which, less depreciation, would amount to $650,000.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Is this the line that runs from Quebec through Ste. Anne de Beaupre?


Lionel Chevrier: It is.


William Joseph Browne: Is that line not in poor condition? Will the Canadian National have to rebuild the line and replace the rolling stock, or do they intend to use the rolling stock that is being acquired?


Lionel Chevrier: The line is in fair condition. Some of the rolling stock will have to be replaced, and the Canadian National Railways estimate they will have to spend a substantial amount of money to improve it; not only the equipment but also the trackage. They have estimated that and charged depreciation and interest.


William Joseph Browne: I asked that question because I travelled on that line last year and it seemed to me in bad condition. I really believe this would be a good investment for the Canadian National, however.


Mr. LaCroix:: Will all the privileges already possessed by the employees of the company so far as pensions are concerned be looked after by the C.N.R.?


Lionel Chevrier: I should think their position would be better, though I am not familiar with the matter at the moment. When this line is integrated with the Canadian National I should think the employees of Quebec Railway, Light and Power would have the same privileges as the other employees of the Canadian National Railways.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is unfortunate that we in this house have not had a chance to hear the officials of the railway; nevertheless the minister has made a very clear statement. One thing still bothers me. There must be some further consideration or we would not be getting for $750,000 equipment which cost $3 million plus a railway which would cost at least something like $1 million, with the railway station. There must be some other disadvantages. Far be it from me to complain because we are getting a good deal; but one would like to feel that he understands what he is doing, and at the moment I frankly confess to being puzzled. Unless this equipment is run down to the point where it has no value; or unless, as the hon. member for St. John's West has indicated, the railway has to be entirely rebuilt, there must be something else. I appreciate the fact that the over-all figure the minister has given from the competent 

officials of the Canadian National indicates that they believe this is a profitable deal, and I go a long way toward accepting their view. But I would like to feel that I understand this deal before voting for it.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: I think the hon. member is overlooking one factor which I know exists; that is, the personal relations between the vendor company and the public. Because of the existence of the two railways, during the winter the service to the public was very unsatisfactory. There were difficulties in keeping the cars properly heated. They had to be at a very high temperature before being set out, and they got very cold before being coupled to the train operated by a steam locomotive. The service has been complained about, and for a long time there has been this effort to have the C.N.R. take it over and give a satisfactory service. The C.N.R. would not pay any more than it thought it could justify on economic grounds.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Conveyance free of charges.
Mr. Knowles:: Where will the power come from? Is the C.N.R. buying the source of power as well, or will it purchase power from this company?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: An arrangement has been made, which I understand the C.N.R. look upon as very satisfactory, for the supply of electric power by the Quebec Power Company, which was the parent company here. At the time this sale was arranged, quite a long term contract was arranged for the supply of power for the operation of the railway in the hands of the C.N.R.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then will this vendor company actually go out of business?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I am not in a position to give a positive answer. This was the company that operated the street car service in the city of Quebec. The street cars have been replaced by busses. I do not know whether that was done by another subsidiary, or whether the old street car company acquired the busses, but the street cars have been completely removed from the streets of Quebec and the public is now being served by busses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of the biU.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to consolidate and revise the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act and the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, and certain other acts; to provide for the organization and functions of the treasury board and the Department of Finance, and the appointment and functions of the comptroller of the treasury; to regulate the collection, management and disbursement of public money, public borrowing, the management of the public debt, and the acquisition, recording and issue of public stores; to provide for the keeping of adequate public accounts, the audit thereof, and the appointment, salary and functions of the Auditor General of Canada; to provide for the control of the financial affairs of crown corporations; to regulate the terms and conditions upon which contracts may be made on behalf of His Majesty; to provide a procedure for the write-off of debts owing to His Majesty that have become uncollectible; and to provide for the management of the consolidated revenue fund and for the making of certain payments therefrom.
He said: It is not the intention of the government, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with this measure at the present session. This bill is to provide for the revision of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. I have had a word with some of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and have explained it would be my wish, if it met with the views of the house, to make a comparatively brief statement when we are in committee explaining the objects of the bill, and have it given first reading in order that it may be available to all members before the next session. At the next session we will reintroduce the measure and have it given second reading and referred to the public accounts committee. I would not want to ;ake the time of the house to debate it at this session,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I doubt if there would be any widespread insistence that we should embark on a detailed study of this bill at the present time. The suggestion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) seems a wise one, and it was the course adopted a short time ago in connection with the Income Tax Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We understand the position, and we take it that in the fall the bill will have to be introduced in the usual way,
Financial Administration Act by a prior resolution. In other words, by agreeing to the resolution now we do not prejudice our right to discuss the matter at all stages this fall.


Douglas Charles Abbott: None whatever. My sole
purpose is that the bill could be given first reading to enable hon. members to examine its terms now.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This resolution, Mr. Chairman, seeks leave to introduce a bill to provide for the financial administration of the government of Canada, the audit of the public accounts and the financial control of crown corporations, and as I indicated, I should like to make this statement at this time.
Briefly stated, the purpose is threefold. In the first place, it is proposed to consolidate in one statute, in simplified, clarified and, where necessary, in amended form, the provisions relating to the financial organization and administration of the government of Canada and the audit of the public accounts, which are now included in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act, the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act and certain other statutes.
In addition, certain new provisions will be introduced which experience has shown are essential for the administration of the collecting, disbursing, borrowing, and accounting activities of an enterprise of such magnitude as the government of Canada.
In the second place, it is proposed to provide a statutory basis for the management and control of public stores similar in principle to that provided in the Department of Transport Stores Act. Thirdly, it is proposed to establish a more uniform system of financial and budgetary control, and accounting, auditing and reporting, for crown companies.
The Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act has been on the statutes in virtually unchanged form since 1869. The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act has not been amended since 1931. The pronounced and rapid growth in the size and complexity of government business in recent years, and particularly in the war and post-war period, has shown the need for certain changes in the existing legislation. In bringing together in one statute the principal provisions of these acts relating to the financial organization and administration of the government, some obsolete and unnecessary provisions have been eliminated, and a number of amendments have been introduced.

Financial Administration Act
After this resolution is approved the bill will be given first reading. There will not be time for further action on it at this session, but it is the government's desire that the bill be given full and careful study, and by introducing it in the house at the present time it is hoped that hon. members and others interested will have an opportunity to consider fully its terms. When it is reintroduced at the next session of parliament in the autumn, it is the intention to refer the measure to the public accounts committee for detailed consideration; and it is our hope that by making it public at this time its consideration then may be facilitated.
Financial operations as extensive as those of the government would, under any set of circumstances, require an elaborate administrative organization. Day-to-day operations must be carried on smoothly and efficiently, and decisions based on accurate and current information must be made and executed without delay. This calls not only for a high degree of speed and technical efficiency in the collecting and disbursing processes, and in recording and classifying financial transactions; it also means that those who are required to make decisions must be in a position to do so promptly. Inevitably, in an enterprise of any magnitude, this involves some delegation of authority. However, the government's financial business must be carried on with full regard to the traditional relationships which exist under our parliamentary system of government between the legislature and the executive. With the substantial increase in the amount of public business which comes before it, parliament can no longer deal, as it once did, with the details of administration. However, the government is the executant of the will of parliament, and must look there for its authority, and a broad measure of control and accountability is both necessary and proper.
The working out of the precise degree of control that should be exercised raises many difficult problems, but I believe that when hon. members have had an opportunity to study the provisions of the bill in detail they will agree that a very real effort has been made to preserve for parliament the final word on those fundamental matters which are, and indeed which should be, for parliament alone to deal with. When authority has been granted to the executive a full measure of accountability has been assured. In short, the aim has been, by the proper delegation of authority, to achieve business efficiency in operations with full regard for the fundamental concepts of parliamentary sovereignty and executive responsibility.
One of the most important parts of the bill is the provision for the continuation of an

independent audit of the public accounts on behalf of parliament. The office of Auditor General, as we know it today, had its genesis in 1878, when provision was made for an examination of the accounts of Canada by an officer independent of the executive and responsible directly to the House of Commons. In succeeding revisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, the Auditor General's independence as a servant of parliament was carefully preserved. The present bill makes no change in this regard, except to remove the present rather anomalous requirement that the Auditor General shall, if so directed by the governor in council, examine the accounts of any branch of the public service before payment.
Although in practice in recent years the Auditor General has been called upon to undertake few pre-audits, it has seemed to us wholly inconsistent that, on the direction of the governor in council, he should be obliged to commit himself to the propriety of expenditures before payment. It is the statutory duty of the comptroller of the treasury, as an executive officer, to make the necessary prepayment examinations and satisfy himself that there is authority for proposed disbursements. To project the Auditor General into this administrative process is, I am convinced, wrong in principle, and for this reason it is not proposed to re-enact this provision in the bill.
The treasury board is an integral part of our machinery of government. The new bill will replace the main portion of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act, but provision will be made for establishing the department and providing a statutory basis for the board's existence and position as a committee of the privy council. It is proposed to provide a clearer definition of the board's powers and field of operations, to authorize it specifically to make regulations with respect to various financial matters and the administration of the public service, and, when authorized by the governor in council, to perform certain purely administrative duties now performed by the council.
One of the most pressing problems of central administration in recent years has arisen from the fact that council has been obliged to concern itself with a multiplicity of minor matters of purely administrative character. To relieve it of some of these routine matters, it is proposed to introduce a provision enabling it to authorize the treasury board to exercise a number of the administrative powers conferred on it-that is, the council- under the civil service and certain pension and superannuation acts. Not only will this result in a considerable reduction in the volume of work which now comes before council,

but it will enable many of these routine matters, which are referred to the treasury board before being considered in council, to be dealt with more expeditiously than in the past.
A number of new provisions are being introduced with respect to the collection, management and disbursement of public moneys. Most of them are of a technical nature relating to the mechanics of the financial processes, and are designed either to clarify existing legislation or to improve or simplify present administrative practices, and I think it would be more appropriate if they were explained in the committee stage of the bill. However, there are two or three of the proposed revisions which I believe are of more immediate interest to the house, and I should like to refer briefly to them. First, however, I might say that the provisions relating to the office of the comptroller of the treasury, which was established when the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act was amended in 1931, are being re-enacted in substantially unaltered form, with such additions as experience has shown are advisable.
Among the new provisions of the bill it is proposed to include specific provision making it clear that the Minister of Finance may purchase, hold and sell securities of Canada. The authority to invest balances of public moneys not immediately required for use has always been regarded as vested in the minister as part of his duties in managing the consolidated revenue fund. In placing the practice on a statutory basis the purpose is to give a clear definition of these powers as part of the general function of managing public moneys and the public debt, and to provide a direction as to the accounting treatment to be given profits and losses incidental to the investment operations.
Another new provision will relate to writing off uncollectible debts owing to His Majesty that have been outstanding for many years. At the present time there is no parliamentary authority to write off such debts, and considerable expense has been incurred by departments in maintaining records of -claims that are valueless. The problem of dealing with these uncollectible items has been considered from time to time by the public accounts committee, and hon. members will recall that in its third report last year the committee recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of a procedure whereby amounts which have been outstanding for the previous ten years could be written off. A procedure is now being proposed for dealing systematically with such bad debts of limited size, which I commend to the public accounts committee for its consideration.
Financial Administration Act
It is also proposed to include a clause to provide that when a guarantee has been given under the authority of parliament, any amount required to be paid under the terms of the guarantee may be paid without any further appropriation. I believe it is a matter of the utmost importance that when the government, in the name of His Majesty and under the authority of parliament, has given a guarantee, there should be no question that its terms may be implemented and any necessary payment made without delay.
Another important new feature of the bill is the proposal to establish a system for the control of public stores. The principle involved is not new. It is essentially that now followed under the Department of Transport Stores Act, but it has seemed desirable to provide more comprehensive legislation which may be applied to the stores of any department. Briefly stated, the proposed measure provides for the general regulation of the acquisition, custody and issue of departmental stores, and establishes the accounting machinery for financial control through the operation of revolving funds. It is not intended that a revolving fund should be established for every department, but for those departments where the requirements of several services financed from different appropriations may be met by centralized purchasing and warehousing practices, there should be substantial economies in the use of such funds. The use of revolving funds will be subject to the approval of parliament, possibly through the inclusion of an appropriate item in the estimates; and when a department has been authorized to operate a fund and the amount that may be charged to the fund at any time has been fixed by parliament, the department's stores investment will be limited to the amount authorized.
One of the important new parts of the bill is that providing for the control of the financial affairs of crown corporations. The crown corporation form of enterprise is not a new type of organization, but in recent years, as the work of government has become more complex, increasing reliance has been placed on it as the appropriate instrument for administering and managing many public services in which business enterprise and public accountability must be combined. In the schedules to the bill some thirty-three corporations are listed, engaged in activities ranging from the production of munitions and synthetic rubber to the provision of housing, transportation and broadcasting services. Apart from the Government Companies Operation Act of 1946, which applies only to certain crown companies incorporated under part I of the Companies Act, 1934,

Financial Administration Act there is no comprehensive legislation dealing with the financial operations of these enterprises and their financial relations to the government. In the present bill it is proposed to remedy thiis omission and to make systematic provision for the financial control of those crown corporations that are listed in the schedules of the bill and such others as may be designated by the governor in council as falling within the several categories established in the bill.
It is apparent from an examination of the acts under which the existing corporations were established that parliament has not granted all of them the same degree of independence and autonomy. Ultimate accountability to parliament has in all cases been a prime objective, but the way in which this has been achieved has varied widely. At the one extreme are those bodies which, as departments of government, are responsible for administrative, supervisory or regulatory services and are subject to more or less continuous day-to-day control and direction of the government or a minister, but which, for one reason or another, have been given corporate status. At the other extreme are those bodies that conduct lending and financial operations, or manage commercial and industrial operations involving the production of or dealing in goods or the supplying of services to the public, and are normally required to pay their own way. These proprietary corporations, as they are designated in the bill, have usually been given a considerable degree of managerial freedom, and such control as is exercised by the government or a minister may be compared to that of the equity shareholder of a business corporation.
Falling neither within the class of departmental corporations on the one hand, nor of proprietary corporations on the other, are those crown corporations which are created to manage trading or service operations on a quasi-commercial basis, or to undertake procurement, construction or disposal activities on behalf of the crown. These bodies, which we term "agency corporations", are normally dependent on appropriations to meet deficits, and it is this characteristic which suggests that they should be subject to somewhat more detailed financial control than are proprietary corporations.
It is proposed that departmental corporations will be governed as at present by the same provisions as are applicable to departments generally.
With respect to agency and proprietary corporations, it is proposed that the terms of the crown corporations part of the bill should
[Mr. Abbott.!

apply, but in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of that part and any other act, it is specifically provided that the provisions of such other act shall prevail. The purpose is to lay the groundwork for uniform financial control and to legislate with respect to those matters which the present acts do not cover. At some future date the financial provisions of the special acts may be reviewed, but for the present it is proposed that they should continue to operate.
I will not attempt at this time to cover all the provisions of this part of the bill, but I might say that it is proposed that the annual capital budgets of both agency and proprietary corporations, as approved by the governor in council, should be laid before parliament. Provision will also be made for regulating the establishment of reserves and the treatment of surplus moneys; for enabling corporations to meet emergency requirements for working capital; and, in the case of agency corporations, for prescribing the conditions upon which they may undertake contractual commitments. It is also proposed to make provision for keeping proper books of account, for the preparation of financial statements and the submission of annual and other reports, and for auditing the accounts and financial transactions of corporations.
In the provisions relating to the appointment and reports of auditors of crown corporations it is proposed in some respects to override existing legislation. We propose to qualify the Auditor General for appointment as the auditor, or a joint auditor, of a crown corporation, in any case in which he is not now eligible for appointment, and to require the auditor to report on the financial affairs of the corporation in the terms specified in this bill.
In effect, the auditor is now being asked to examine the income and expenditure statement as well as the balance sheet, and to satisfy himself not only that transactions have been accurately reported, but that they do not exceed the powers of the corporation. In recent years the scope of the auditor's examination and the phraseology of his report have been subjects of serious consideration in the United Kingdom and in the United States, and in both countries within the past three or four years new forms of report have been introduced. This is a field in which professional accountants and auditors are well qualified to give advice, and, in seeking to develop a satisfactory form of audit certificate applicable to crown corporations, I would welcome an expression of views from accounting organizations and others professionally interested. The bill, as

I have indicated, will be reintroduced when the house meets again, in the autumn, and in the intervening time I should be pleased to receive and consider any recommendations or suggestions which may be submitted.
I think I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the more important aspects of the bill. There are a number of other proposed provisions, such as those relating to the management of the public debt, placing the government officers' guarantee fund on a statutory basis, and re-enacting the provisions of the Debts Due to the Crown Act, which will be repealed; but I think that it is more appropriate that these be explained in committee.
In bringing together in one place the provisions covered by the proposed bill, it will be possible to repeal a number of existing statutes which hon. members will find listed in a schedule to the bill.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that it is not customary to call the attention of the house to the work of departmental officers in connection with the preparation of legislation, but on .this occasion I feel impelled to depart from the usual practice and to mention the name of my deputy minister. In the preparation of this bill, as in so many matters of importance to this house and this country, Dr. Clark's contribution cannot be overemphasized, and I consider it fitting that I should record this fact.
I should like also to express my appreciation of the valuable and constructive advice and assistance which I and my officers have received from the Auditor General at every stage in the preparation of this bill. All of the suggestions proposed by Mr. Sellar have been worthy of, and have received, the most serious consideration, and many of them are embodied in the text of the measure covered by this resolution.
The bill will provide a more positive and effective regulation of financial transactions and public stores and property; it will ensure a more satisfactory control of the financial affairs of crown corporations, and it will enable parliament to receive a full accounting of the manner in which public moneys have been collected and spent. I commend the measure to the committee, and ask that the resolution be adopted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first of all
it is clear that the public accounts committee will have a full-time job when they meet in the fall.
The Auditor General, in statements he has made from time to time, has commented on the practice of legislating by votes in the estimates. The minister knows that the
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act Auditor General has indicated that he sees no objection to that procedure as an occasional instance; but he does dislike it as a continuing practice. Will this bill relate to that practice in any way, or will it open up a discussion of the matter?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Unquestionably that subject
could be discussed before the committee on public accounts. The bill makes no specific reference to it, because, of course, parliament is master of its own procedure. What the Auditor General indicated in his statement before the committee of the house on the dollar items, for the purpose of legislating, is certainly not illegal, although it may be undesirable in certain cases. But I would hope that that question might be fully explored-not only the dollar items.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are
dealing with direct methods, not indirect methods.
, Mr. Abbott: That is right.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 401, to provide for the financial administration of the government of Canada, the audit of the public accounts and the financial control of crown corporations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the
bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next session.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 375, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Employees.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that any work that will be done under the Saskatchewan river dam irrigation plan will be under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and the fact that Mr. Thomson, who administers this branch, has spoken highly of the efficacy and economic efficiency of the dam, both as a means of developing power and for purposes of prairie farm

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act rehabilitation, is the minister in a position to bring the House of Commons and the country up to date on the question I asked this morning?
I put my question in this way because I do not want to transgress upon the propriety of asking a question that would imply that I had certain information. I therefore simply ask whether the minister is prepared to give an interim report on the present situation, and in particular on the matter to which my question was directed this morning.


James Garfield Gardiner: An order for return was passed asking for all the correspondence between the provincial governments and the federal government, which I hope to bring down this week, if not tomorrow then the following day. When it is brought down the correspondence will give full information about the present position as to the possible construction of the dam.
It is true, as the hon. member for Lake Centre states, that the director has spoken-highly of the possibilities of the South Saskatchewan dam. It is also true that I have spoken in optimistic terms at different times as to its possibilities. But there are certain things which will require to be done in order to proceed with the building of the dam, even if the government were to decide that it should be proceeded with. One of them has to do with the division of water as among the provinces. I have found, in preparing the file, that it is not nearly as complete as I thought it was. The order in council which set up the water board made it necessary for this government to appoint two members, with the three prairie provinces appointing one each, making a board of five. When we were setting out the duties of the board, the provinces insisted that after any question had. been determined by the board it should be sent to the provincial governments for approval. That is, the board might make a decision that a certain amount of water should be permitted to go across the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary, or that a certain amount of water should be permitted to cross into Manitoba, but that would not decide the question. The separate provincial governments would have to pass orders in council agreeing with the decision reached. All of them would have to pass orders in council before it would become effective. So far no provincial government has passed that order in council. There has been some correspondence, and there has been information asked for during the last few weeks since the matter has been under discussion, but until those orders in council are passed

it will not be possible to proceed any faster than we are proceeding in deciding whether we should go ahead.
It has been announced to the house that a committee will be appointed and that all information available will be referred to that committee. The question asked this morning was, in effect, whether the government is prepared to name the committee, and the Prime Minister indicated that we are proceeding as rapidly as we can in that direction. Inquiry has been made where it was necessary to make it in order to get the consent of certain people to act. As soon as that consent has been obtained, my understanding is that the government will name the committee and have all information available referred to it.
I do not think I can say anything more about the committee at the moment, as that brings the position up to date. One reason why it is impossible to mention names is that we have no definite assurance that individuals who have been recommended will accept the appointment. I do not think the committee would expect me to be using names at a time when we may have to turn to some others in order to fill out the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the minister has stated that none of the three provinces has passed the necessary order in council confirming the orders made by the water board, can he say whether or not any objection has been raised to the issuance by any province of such order in council? Has the government of Manitoba given any indication that it is going to refuse to allow the necessary allocation and diversion of water on the South Saskatchewan? Has the government of Saskatchewan been approached in connection with this matter, and has it given any indication that it is not going to pass such order in council? I ask the same question with regard to the government of the province of Alberta.
I can say that within the last few days the association in Saskatchewan, a voluntary body, had a meeting in connection with this matter and expressed itself directly and definitely, because apparently commencement of construction is being indefinitely postponed.
As to the question I asked this morning, and the answer given by the minister, with respect to the personnel of the committee of experts, I am in agreement with him, because I realize that any indication of names at this time would be quite improper. But I am disturbed about the fact that having believed that something was going to be done, and it

having been decided that a committee of experts must be satisfied on the question, we are still faced with a hurdle in that all three provinces must consent. That is one reason why I raised such strong objection when this matter of the water board was before the committee. The possibility that one province could completely prevent the doing of work so necessary as this indicates the difficulties that will be experienced if the government of Manitoba should take the stand that any diversion of waters necessary for this project would be detrimental to the province. That is why I asked the minister the specific question, and I hope he will give an answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it would be wrong to say that any province has raised objection to the building of the South Saskatchewan dam. I do not think that that question would be submitted to any province except Saskatchewan, and I doubt if Saskatchewan would have any objection.


John George Diefenbaker: To the diversion of water.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what I am going to say. The matter of building the South Saskatchewan river dam would not be affected by that. When the board was set up-I am sorry I have not the exact dates this morning, but I sent for the letters in order to make up the return that is to be brought down; I believe it was several months ago, and I am not sure that it may not have been one or two years since we were first discussing the form of the water board for the three provinces. During that time, Manitoba, being the last to receive the water, naturally was much concerned as to whether the board was going to be able to make the final decision. So far as this government was concerned, we were quite prepared at that time to say that the board could make the final decision. But the provinces were not prepared to accept that, more particularly the province of Manitoba. I think Manitoba was fairly strongly supported by the other two provinces. Eventually we agreed to the board being set up with the undertaking that any decision reached would have to be approved by the governments of the provinces before it would become final.
There were no discussions then which would indicate that anybody was opposed to anything; it was only that they wanted the right to protect their own interests when it came to the time to deal with the matter. As I recall the correspondence, which will be on the file when it comes down and I think will verify what I am going to say, the only objection raised by the Saskatchewan government that could be called an objection was raised by the minister of agriculture on
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act behalf of the government, in a letter written wishing to know, before they consented fully, whether or not sufficient water was being allowed to pass the boundary line of Alberta into Saskatchewan to fill up a dam such as the South Saskatchewan river dam and make water available to do the things that we were maintaining could be done. An attempt has been made to satisfy them on that point, and I really think they are satisfied.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the government of Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the government of Saskatchewan. The only other question that has been raised, as a result of which we consider it advisable to refer the matter to certain others, is a report which was brought down, not at our request but at the request of the Saskatchewan government. I do not think the Saskatchewan government accepts it as final, or even as good advice. However, a report was brought down by Cass-Beggs, an economist or engineer from Toronto, who was asked by the provincial government to make a report. He puts up an argument to' the- effect that you may be able to produce power more cheaply from coal than from the water that would be available at this dam. That is a point concerning which some people would like to be satisfied, and I do not know that any great delay is going to be caused. I doubt very much if any delay will be caused in arriving at a decision because of the appointment of the committee. I think the committee will speed up rather than slow down a decision on all these points I have mentioned.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister how this man came to make that report. At whose request did he make it?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the request of the government of Saskatchewan, but I do not think it was done for the purpose of preparing a report either for or against the dam. He was making a report on the possibility of developing power in Saskatchewan, and he argues therein whether or not the water development could be a substitute for coal.


Mr. Wright:: I do not think the Cass-Beggs report had anything to do with the South Saskatchewan river dam. As I remember it, he was the engineer called in to make a report on the power situation in Saskatchewan with respect to methods of developing power and the distribution thereof within the province. That was what his report was concerned with. It may be, as the minister states, that somewhere in that report he makes the statement that power could be developed by the use of the coal in the
4628	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act southern part of the province as cheaply as it could be developed by utilizing water in certain other areas. I have not read the report. The minister states that is contained in it, but the report had nothing to do with the South Saskatchewan river dam. It had to do with the development and distribution of power in the province of Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one other point. When this body of experts have concluded their investigation, and if the international reputation of those chosen be such that it will command attention and authority, and the report is in the affirmative, is there any assurance that the work will be proceeded with?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I should attempt to prophesy as to what the decision of the government will be. Because of a remark made when the hon. member for Lake Centre was on his feet previously, I believe I should say that I do not think the decision or advice of the committee, no matter which way it may be, must necessarily be taken by the government. It is one of those cases that often arises. I myself, for example, have had more to do with this dam than anyone else. I instructed the engineers in the first place to study the possibility of building a dam on the South Saskatchewan river. For three or four years before anybody discussed the matter publicly we were discussing it from week to week in the department. Therefore I feel I am under some obligation personally to the taxpayers of Canada to say: If you are going to spend $68 million, you are going to get something for it.
As I said previously when we were discussing this matter, I am convinced that a lake in the middle of Saskatchewan would be a good thing, even if it did not produce any power or any water for irrigation at all; from some other points of view a lake there might easily be worth a great deal of money to the whole of Canada. But even so, I have been in politics for a long time, and I do not believe I have any white elephants hanging around yet; therefore I would prefer to be absolutely certain before asking the government of Canada to arrange to spend $68 million, together with $33 million of the province's money, to develop a project of this kind. I should like to feel absolutely certain, as near as one can, that it will be a success when it is built. I can hardly think of anything the committee can say which would make me more convinced than I am now.


John George Diefenbaker: Will make the government more convinced.


James Garfield Gardiner: But there is the possibility that the experts, in looking at it, may point out things that have never occurred to me, and possibly have never occurred to the members of this House of Commons. It will be on that basis that their information will be considered. As has been suggested, the hope is that, when we finally get the consent of the three individuals to act, they will be persons whose opinion will be accepted
anywhere in Canada.
/


Percy Ellis Wright: From the information the
minister has at hand, is there any serious objection by the province of Manitoba to the division of the amounts of water to be allowed to cross the various boundaries as set out by the Saskatchewan rivers board? '


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think so. I do not think there is any definite objection raised. Within the last two or three weeks they have asked for more information, and they have received that information from our officials at Regina. They are hopeful that some action will be taken on the water board's decision within a reasonable time. I recite these facts only in order to show that I think a little too much emphasis, both outside the house and inside, has been placed on the fact that a committee is being appointed. It is not a delaying procedure, and there is the possibility that it will not delay the procedure at all, because we must have these orders in council, or we must change the whole understanding between ourselves and the provinces before we can proceed in any case.


Mr. Ferguson:: For years this dam project has been discussed by political dam builders prior to elections, and they are always positive that it will start some time in the very near future, or shortly after the election. We have heard it discussed. As a Canadian and a resident of Ontario who knows a little about Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia, and being desirous of seeing Canada built up on a good solid foundation, I would advocate that as soon as possible really expert men who know what they are talking about take hold of this problem in a businesslike manner. Fire those who are not competent; obtain expert advice and proceed with the project, or tell us why it should not be gone ahead with at once. If it will benefit Saskatchewan it will benefit Canada as a whole, and the sooner we reap those benefits the better. Let us stop making a political football of it and go ahead with the job if it will benefit the whole country.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: This is a specific measure
amending an act. It contains two specific clauses, and in my opinion we cannot permit a general debate.


Mr. Blackmore:: I could not follow all
you said, Mr. Chairman, so I was wondering if it would be in order to say a word in support of the minister's general attitude on this question of building this dam. I believe it would be of value for several reasons to have this dam built. I understand it will help the water table. Now that the United States is beginning to worry because its water table is sinking, it seems to me that this project would benefit both Canada and the United States.
I congratulate the minister on the attitude he has taken. We want him to proceed as carefully and cautiously as he did in connection with the St. Mary project. I am sure that if he comes to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do, it will not be a matter of politics but a question of whether or not it will benefit the dominion as a whole.
I might point out one other matter that should be kept in mind. Hon. members will have noticed that this has been an exceedingly wet year in southern Alberta, so much so that for a time the St. Mary river dam was almost in danger. Occasionally we have such a year of heavy precipitation. 1902 was such a year; so were 1908, 1916 and 1928. The effect of such years of heavy precipitation on filling this reservoir is something I believe should be kept in mind when contemplating the feasibility of the whole project.


Mr. Jones:: In view of the ruling just made, I hesitate to ask this question, but I think it should come under this bill, Has the minister given consideration to extending the operations of this act to British Columbia?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: That question would be out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: This section gives the minister very wide power. He is given authority to appoint a director of rehabilitation, an associate director and all other officers and employees required to carry out the provisions of this act except engineers, clerks and stenographers. If the dam were proceeded with, would this not give the minister power to appoint everyone connected with that project except those specifically excepted under section 6(1)?


James Garfield Gardiner: My answer I think will strengthen the ruling the chairman gave a few moments ago. The dam will not be built under P.F.R.A. funds at all. A special vote is put in the estimates for larger irrigation projects. Those who are carrying on under
Canada Lands Surveys Act that vote will not be affected by this provision. They would be appointed under the terms of the vote itself, so this would not apply to them except to the extent that engineers associated with P.F.R.A. may be working on the dam.


John George Diefenbaker: How many employees are there now?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 900.


Percy Ellis Wright: Will the years of service these various employees have given the department be taken into consideration when they are brought under the Civil Service Act, with respect to pensions and other benefits?


James Garfield Gardiner: The rules and regulations governing the civil service generally will apply. There is a plan under which that is always done, and that will be followed in this case.
With regard to the authority of the minister under subsection 2, since this question was raised when we were discussing the matter previously I would call attention to the words: -but the salaries and expenses of all persons appointed1 by the minister under this subsection shall be fixed by the governor in council.
I think everyone will agree that really means the appointments are made by the governor in council. The salaries are set up in that way, and they must go before treasury board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


James Garfield Gardiner: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA LANDS SURVEYS ACT


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to repeal the Dominion Lands Surveys Act and to enact in substitution thereof the Canada Lands Surveys Act, a revision and consolidation of the former. Provision is made in the revised act for increased

Canada Dairy Products Act
remuneration for the members of the board of examiners and the secretary of the board and for special examiners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand the minister is going to make a statement?


George Prudham: In committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand also that when the resolution is adopted it is the intention simply to bring in the bill and let it stand over until the fall?


George Prudham: That is right. We propose to have the bill printed and put in the hands of hon. members and proceed with it at the next session of parliament.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


George Prudham: This measure is entirely technical in nature and is designed to bring up to date the federal law relating to surveys of public lands coming under federal government jurisdiction. This revision is the outcome of changed conditions and of developments in modern surveying practices. A modification of the existing law has become necessary because of legislative changes in the last few years. The Dominion Lands Surveys Act has become inoperative because it applies to classes of lands coming under the old Dominion Lands Act, which was repealed last year and replaced by the Territorial Lands Act.
Three main changes are proposed in this new Canada Lands Surveys Act. First, the public lands to which it applies are redefined. Second, its provisions have been adapted to modern surveying practices. Third, the qualifications of surveyors have been restated.
As I have said, this bill, being purely technical in nature, should be non-controversial.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Prudham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 402, respecting the surveys of public lands of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA DAIRY PRODUCTS ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure repealing parts I and II of the Dairy Industry Act and substituting therefor a new act intituled, the Canada Dairy Products Act, for the purposes of establishing

national standards for dairy products and of regulating interprovincial and international trade therein.
Provision is made for the appointment of inspectors, graders and other persons necessary for the administration and enforcement of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Mr. Charlton:: Is the minister prepared to make a statement about this measure?


James Garfield Gardiner: The proposed act will replace the Dairy Industry Act, and it is made necessary by reason of the decisions of the supreme court and the judicial committee of the privy *council on the margarine reference. Consideration was given to whether it would be sufficient to amend the act in all its different sections in order to provide for the changes that were necessary because of those decisions, but on the advice of the Department of Justice new legislation has been drafted.
The main points of difference as compared with the present act are as follows: First, the manufacture and sale of dairy products will no longer be controlled. The provision in the act prohibiting the manufacture and sale of dairy products substitutes will be dropped. Second, the control of interprovincial and export movement of dairy products for which grades and standards have been established is added to the import control as provided for under the present act. In other words, the method of attack in connection with the enforcement of regulations having to do with dairy products is through control of the interprovincial and international sides of the handling of the product rather than through control of production and sale within a province.


Mr. Sinnolt:: Is it the intention of the minister to go ahead with this bill this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hope is that we shall get it through tomorrow.


John Alpheus Charlton: We have no wish to hold up this resolution, because a revision of this act is long overdue. We consent to the passage of the resolution on the distinct understanding that we do not jeopardize our right to [DOT] discuss the bill when it is brought forward.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 403, to establish national standards for dairy products and to regulate interprovincial and international trade in dairy products.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Supreme Court Act CRIMINAL CODE



SUPREME COURT ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 400, to amend the Supreme Court Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Appeals in forma pauperis.
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister how frequently the right has been used to take an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in forma pauperis since the change has been made in the law. At the time the law was changed it brought a right to the individual that he had hitherto not enjoyed, in that regardless of his poverty he was enabled to take his appeal, having regard to the limitations contained in the law, to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would be a matter of interest to know the extent to which that privilege has been used. Is there any case in mind or outstanding at the present time to which this section will be applicable, or is there any appeal that would be taken that has been denied by reason of the fact that the prospective appellant has not taken advantage of his right within the period of time provided by the statute?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This suggestion came to the department and the government from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who felt that the amendment indicated in the bill should be provided. We have accepted this view without much question. So far as the questions my hon. friend has asked are concerned, I shall be glad to get the exact information and let him have it after the noon adjournment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


John George Diefenbaker: Not until this afternoon, so that the information will be forthcoming. I notice also that the amendment will be deemed to have come into effect on December 23, 1949, which would indicate that it is to cover some cases that have been before the court or that have been denied the opportunity of coming before the court. That is the reason for the questions I asked.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Later this day.



VARIOUS AMENDMENTS RELATING TO OFFENSIVE WEAPONS, PENALTY FOR OFFENCES OF A SEDITIOUS NATURE, IMPROPER USE OF MAILS, ETC.

Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 391, to amend the Criminal Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not going to
speak to the motion for second reading of this bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I was called out, on exceedingly short notice, from a conference with the attorney general and deputy attorney general of Alberta, and I was forced to come here without my file on the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us call it one o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; call it one o'clock,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Garson@: I think that course might
be preferable. As a matter of fact I am anxious to close my discussion with the attorney general of Alberta, as he just has a short time to be here.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, when one
o'clock was called I was about to proceed with a few remarks on the motion for second reading of this Criminal Code amendments bill.
On the motion for second reading the points we should discuss are those of principle. These annual batches of Criminal Code amendments that are brought forward every year include a number of clauses which may involve no particular point of principle but rather some point of procedure or of administration. On the other hand, by including in one bill all the suggestions which come to us from a variety of sources and concerning a variety of subject matters, all of which have to do in some way with crime and the administration of criminal law, we usually get, as we have in the present bill before us, a number of quite different principles that are involved in certain clauses of the bill.
Not only would it save a great deal of time of the house, but I believe it would make for a clearer discussion if, with the consent of hon. members, we could have the understanding that we go at once into committee. Then, in committee, as each of these principles is encountered, in the clause or group of clauses in which it is involved, perhaps I

Criminal Code
might be permitted to lead off with a statement concerning the principle of that particular clause or group of clauses. We might then have the understanding that debate would proceed upon that principle and the related sections, and we would conclude the debate on this principle before we opened another debate on the next principle and its related sections. If that is satisfactory I shall content myself in supporting the motion for second reading by indicating those clauses and groups of clauses in respect of which I suggest important principles arise.
First of all there are clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, which establish an important new principle with regard to treason and sedition; and clause 18, which provides a new offence of sabotage. Then there is another group of clauses which deals with a general revision and consolidation of all those sections of the Criminal Code relating to the registration of pistols and revolvers, the principle of that particular group being that of modernizing these sections and making them applicable to present conditions.
The next group contains clauses 12, 16 and 20, which deal with offences relating to His Majesty's mail.
The next group in that connection with which there are certain important principles involved is that relating to what has been termed drunken driving.
A new principle arises also in clause 21, which has to do with a device which has been suggested to us by the Department of the Attorney General of Ontario to deal with the stamping out in that province of bookmaking and other gambling offences.
I believe we will make much better progress if we follow the course I have suggested. With that thought in mind I shall now terminate my remarks, and hope that we may have second reading at once.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went in committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Canadian forces.
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am
amazed at the lack of concern about the principle of this bill. Amendments to the Criminal Code are naturally of great importance, because in nearly all cases they involve the freedom of individuals, while at the same time they are for the protection of the citizens of the community. Therefore I believe we should have more time to consider the bill so that we might find out the views of the people in the constituencies before we are compelled to deal with it in this hodgepodge fashion. It would have

been much better if several amendments had been brought in separately, so that we would deal with minor amendments in the manner in which such amendments may be considered, but where a definite principle is involved it could 'have been considered by itself.
I know some members are receiving a great many communications in regard to certain clauses of the bill. I am not greatly concerned about that, because I generally know the sources from which they come and the motives the people concerned have. But even there we should, I suggest, if we must err, err on the side of caution.
I suppose what I have said should have been said before Mr. Speaker left the chair. I am very sorry that this measure has come before us in this way at this late hour of the session. If the amendments are urgent, then we should have had them earlier; if they are not urgent, then I see no reason why they should hot lie over until the fall session.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Assisting enemy.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps the principle involved in this clause is of sufficient importance to warrant my making a statement, which I shall try to keep as short as possible.
Section 74, subsection 1, paragraph (i) of the code as it stands at present provides that treason is assisting any public enemy at war with His Majesty in such war by any means whatsoever. The amendment that we are now considering broadens this definition by making it treason to assist any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities whether or not a state or war exists between Canada and the countries whose forces they are.
Thus it will be treason to assist any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged, whether or not a legal state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are, and whether or not those forces can legally be described, that is in the technical sense, as being enemy forces. Moreover, the amendment removes any doubt that a person may be tried for the offence in Canada, whether or not the offence is committed in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: The objective of this clause is laudable, but its implications are very dangerous. I should like to find out from the minister what other parts of the commonwealth have brought in a provision such as this. I know of no case in four or five hundred years' interpretation of the law

of treason that goes as far as this amendment. Is there within the British commonwealth or in the United States anything approaching this amendment? I read the discussion that took place by reason of the fact that several persons in this country had gone behind the iron curtain and returned to glorify what they had seen. I have been told of others that have gone to Korea to give comfort to the forces operating against the United Nations. But when the Canadian parliament is asked to pass legislation that makes it treason to assist any public enemy either while in Canada or out of Canada, I should like to ask, however laudable the objective may be, what authority there is for so doing, and whether or not the law officers of the crown have concluded that such a course is lawful.
I can think of an example recently where the authority of the Canadian government did not extend to the making of an order in council legalizing the use of Chinese crews in ships operating under the Canadian ensign in Asiatic waters without having first secured an order in council applicable to Hong Kong. Under this section the Canadian parliament is asked to grant the power to punish for wrongdoing beyond the confines of Canada so far as the crime of treason is concerned. It is for these reasons that I ask that we do not pass an amendment to the Criminal Code that is not within the powers and the jurisdiction of parliament.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend raises two
questions with regard to government policy. First of all, he questions whether we have the power to pass in this parliament an amendment which will apply to an offence which takes place outside of Canada or, to put it in one or two words, whether this parliament has extraterritorial powers. I am sure that if my hon. friend reflects he will remember that when Canada was a colony this parliament did .not have extraterritorial powers, but that following the passage by the British parliament of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 this parliament was placed in possession of extraterritorial powers which have not since been questioned.
My hon. friend asks whether this has been considered by the law officers of the crown. It may be that at common law there is the power to try a case for treason which was committed beyond the confines of the realm and to punish for it if one can secure the offender and try him. Treason within the meaning of the Criminal Code prima facie is under the Criminal Code as it stands at the present time, before this amendment, an offence only if committed inside Canada. The statute as it stands now does not provide
80709-294J
Criminal Code
extraterritorial operations. As I understand my hon. friend, he is objecting to our exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking for information; I am not objecting.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I was saying, an offence
of treason at common law may be tried by a court notwithstanding that it is committed outside the country in which the court has jurisdiction.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the Joyce case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; that Joyce case dealt with another point altogether-whether a person who was an alien acquired a certain liability to the United Kingdom at criminal law by reason of the fact that he was operating under a British passport. The case that establishes the point I am referring to now was an even more famous case, the King v. Casement, which was decided in 1917. As hon. members will recall, in that case Sir Roger Casement was charged with high treason alleged to have been committed outside the United Kingdom contrary to the Treason Act of 1351. That was a statute of Edward III which provided, inter alia:
*-if a man do levy war against our lord the king in his realm or be adherent to the king's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere ... it is to be understood that in the cases above rehearsed, that ought to be adjudged treason which extends to our lord the king . . .
Chief Justice Reading, at page 123 of 1917, 1 King's Bench report, 98, stated:
I have no hesitation myself in stating that if a man adhere to the king's enemies without the realm he is committing the offence of treason; and that he is committing the offence of treason at common law, notwithstanding that the offence is committed without the realm.
Other members of the court agreed with the chief justice. In the court of appeal it was held unanimously that the statute of Edward III applied and reference was not made to the common law in the appeal court judgment. In the result, therefore, it would appear that at the present time to assist outside of Canada an enemy at war with Canada is an offence at common law, punishable in Canadian courts. It may also be that this statute of Edward III operates in Canada. But the purpose of the present clause of the bill is not what my hon. friend fears, to establish some new invasion of the liberty of the subject. It is to put beyond doubt the position of the common law in Canada and to settle the question whether or not the Canadian parliament, perhaps by reason of the fact that in the Criminal Code it had dealt with this subject, had thereby ousted any effect that the statute of Edward III might still have in this country. We contend that the proposed amendment will

. Criminal Code
remove these doubts. That is the reason we submit it, and we disagree with my hon. friend that it involves any new invasion of the liberty of the subject.
The other point my hon. friend referred to was whether there was any example in the other countries of the British commonwealth of nations of treason being defined as an offence in cases where the armed forces of those parts of the commonwealth were contending against enemy armed forces, but where a state of war did not formally exist between the member of the commonwealth and the nation which had put these armed forces in the field. I-and I am sure I can speak for my staff as well-did not take a poll of what has been done by other members of the commonwealth in this connection, but I should think it is very questionable indeed whether these other countries have taken any such action as we now propose. The reason, I would imagine, for this might be that so far as I am aware we have had before in the history of the commonwealth few if any situations parallel to that which is now occurring in Korea, where, with no declaration of war between the nations whose forces are engaged in the Korean campaign, the soldiers are actually fighting one another. Our view in submitting this clause to the house is that anyone who gives aid and comfort to armed forces with which Canadian forces are in fact engaged in hostilities is in substance just as guilty of treason as if a formal declaration of war had been made and no hostilities were in progress, as was the case during the so-called cold war in the early part of world war II.


John George Diefenbaker: I was seeking information and not taking a stand on this question. I said it was a laudable objective, and I was seeking information; but certainly the Casement case does not help my hon. friend. The Casement case and the reference to the statute of Edward III had to do with enemies with whom the nation was at war. I now ask my hon. friend whether it is the interpretation of the law officers of the crown that what is taking place today in Korea is indeed a state of war with an enemy, although undeclared.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not maintaining, nor is it necessary for the justification of this clause to maintain, that what is taking place in Korea is a state of war. The point of this clause is that even where there is not what is technically known as a state of war between opposing sides, but where the armed forces of the opposing sides are killing one another in hostilities-, there exists in substance, if not in form, a state which warrants our defining the offence of persons

who in fact give comfort to the enemy forces as one making such persons guilty of treason under the code.


Mr. Pearkes:: As a layman may I ask this question? Is this clause broad enough to take care of the case of an individual who transports an enemy agent, or somebody who is known to be proceeding to an enemy country, a country whose forces are opposed to the forces of Canada, either knowing or not knowing that the individual is an agent of the enemy or is proceeding to a country which is engaged in operations against Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, anxious as I am to answer my hon. friend's question, that what he is asking me is to give-


John George Diefenbaker: An example of how it will work.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is something more than a legal opinion. He wishes me to consider in relation to a set of hypothetical facts the law that is applicable under the code, asking whether it would apply. I am sure that my hon. friend, although he is a layman, knows that when you get down to an actual case at law, the facts, such as those the hon. gentleman has stated hypothetically here this afternoon, have nuances, shades, qualifications. It is for the court to decide whether, upon the evidence put forward in that case, a conviction or acquittal shall be registered. I do not know whether it would help him, but I can read-it is rather long-the definition of treason in the code. It covers subsections
(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), with certain subparagraphs in some of those subsections. I think my best course is merely to refer him to those sections, and I think he will find there the answer, so far as it can be given in an abstract way, to the question which he has just asked.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be pleased to endeavour to understand the language of the sections to which the minister has referred me; but let me put a more definite case. Suppose that the pilot of an aircraft knows that an individual is proceeding as an agent to the enemy's area of operations. Would this section be broad enough to cover such a case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure my hon. friend is aware that in all crimes under the Criminal Code there is an element referred to by lawyers as mens rea, the guilty mind. To have a guilty mind, of course, is, in terms of my hon. friend's question, to begin with a knowing mind. In other words, if the pilot is conducting some person whom he has no reason to suspect of any desire of helping the enemy-


George Randolph Pearkes: Believing that he is.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -then very likely he cannot be convicted. However, in that connection I want to make this point clear, and I am sure that the lawyers present, and especially those who deal with the criminal law, will agree with it. Just as gold is where you can find it, so in a criminal case a conviction is where you can obtain it from the jury because it hinges upon a question of fact. Once you have it, unless there is some misdirection or something of that sort which will result in a quashing of the conviction, there it is, and it justifies itself. As I have said, the accused has to have a knowing mind, but he has to have a little more than that; he has to have a guilty mind. In the case my hon. friend states it would be for the court to decide as a fact upon the evidence brought forward whether the knowledge he had coupled with the other circumstances brought home against him constituted the mens rea or guilty mind which would be a necessary foundation for any conviction that might be registered against him. I do not know whether that answers my hon. friend's question, bui I am afraid that is the best I can do.


George Randolph Pearkes: To put it in very simple language, if he was proved guilty could he be punished for that offence under this act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, certainly.


George Randolph Pearkes: So it is broad enough to cover such a case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: I realize the man has to be -proved guilty, but I wanted to know if this amendment was broad enough to cover such an act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Take the very clause we are dealing with. It is very simple; there is nothing technical about the language: "assisting, while in or out of Canada, any enemy at war with Canada." That is only one of the subclauses of the general charge of treason. If it can be proved that this pilot or whoever he may be charged under this section of the code, as it will be when it is passed, assisted the enemy, then if the jury so found certainly he could be convicted.


George Randolph Pearkes: And he could be considered as assisting the enemy by taking an enemy agent into his lines? If that was proved he could be charged under this amendment?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The jury would have to find that in the particular case whatever the accused was doing constituted assistance to the enemy within the meaning of the statute.
Criminal Code


George Randolph Pearkes: How would this apply to the master of a Canadian ship, registered in Canada and flying the Canadian flag, transporting enemy personnel to an enemy country?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If on the trial the jury finds that the accused, whoever he may be, has assisted the enemy within the meaning of the statute, then he can properly be convicted of so doing.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the master of that ship was not a Canadian citizen but the ship was of Canadian registry and flying the Canadian ensign, having been granted permission by the proper authority to sail that ship without being a British or Canadian subject, would he come within the scope of this section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would answer that question yes, but lest I leave a misunderstanding I do not think I should stpp there. There is an old saying that before you can have rabbit stew you must first catch the rabbit. The difficulty in charging or trying to convict anyone outside Canada of treason against Canada is that before you can try him within this country you must first arrest him and bring him before Canadian courts. Assuming that this master has been arrested and that it has been possible to bring him before a Canadian court, no matter what country he is a citizen of, regardless of his occupation or anything else, he can be convicted of treason under the statute.


George Randolph Pearkes: To bring it down to one definite and particular case, could the master of the Yen Men, a ship of the Ming Sung Company trading out of Hong Kong carrying communist repatriates to Canton, a man named P. Hanisch, who I understand was born of Austrian-Chinese parents and who is a naturalized Chinese, be tried for treason under this section if he were detained in Hong Kong and brought back to Canada, say by a Canadian destroyer?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am very much afraid that under the guise of asking me questions with regard to this bill my hon. friend is endeavouring to get me to identify myself with his viewpoint in connection with the rather contentious matter to which he refers.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am only repeating information the government has already given.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For that reason I do not wish to express any opinion with regard to what my hon. friend might claim to be concrete facts. But I believe I can answer the question, as indeed I have already answered it, by saying that if such a master, whether a Canadian or not, can be brought before a Canadian court and charged under

Criminal Code
this proposed section of the code with assisting the enemy, the jury can certainly convict him providing it can be proved that what he did was in fact assisting the enemy within the meaning of the section. It may be that the activities to which my hon. friend is referring, assuming they do exist-and I do not even admit that; I do not know-have no particular connection with assisting the enemy's military operations at all, and the jury would so find. That is a question of fact the jury would have to decide. There is the other proviso, as my hon. friend knows, that you cannot dio anything under this section until parliament enacts it; and only things done after this bill becomes law may be the subject of prosecutions under it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister may feel that in legalistic terms he has answered the question that is bothering me, but as a layman I would like to put it again since one can always hope to get a layman's answer, even from the minister. What bothers me is the meaning of this word "assisting". The minister keeps using it, and keeps saying that a conviction would depend upon the jury being satisfied that the person charged had actually assisted the enemy. I note that it is the same word that is in the present subsection (i). Is there any place in the code, or in statutory form anywhere, where the meaning of "assistance" is spelled out? Is it confined to overt acts? Can it include the spoken word or the written word? Can it include trading-I am not referring now to the case mentioned by the member for Nanaimo-by any company in Canada, shall we say, with a country some of whose nationals might be engaged in hostilities with Canadian nationals?
I press the point, Mr. Chairman, because it is a rather serious matter with which we are dealing. We are amending a section of the Criminal Code to which is attached the penalty of death, and we should be sure what we are doing is necessary, and that it is being done properly. The only other point I should like to draw attention to is that subsection (i) as it now stands in the Criminal Code, while it is limited to countries actually at war, and by that we mean a state of war being declared, did contain the phrase "assisting any public enemy by any means whatever". I notice that in the revised form the words "by any means whatever" are left out and we are just left with the word "assisting". Will the minister comment on what I have just said?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My comment would be this. "Assisting" is a word which has been in the Criminal Code for very many years. The only useful answer that might be given to the hon. member would be to refer him to the
[Mr. Garsor.l
cases which have been decided under this section. I do not think there are very many in that time. But I am sure that if he will stop and reflect upon the matter he will realize, whether he be a lawyer or a layman, that the purpose of this word "assisting" in the bill is to describe a certain concept. Now, this particular branch of the crime of treason, that is "assisting the enemy", is one which I suggest to him could take place in a great variety of ways. If the draftsman, instead of using the one word "assist," attempted to specify or spell out all the ways in which assistance could be given to the enemy, he would have a section which would be very much more voluminous than the one before us, and I think less clear and less enforceable. The only question which the jury have to ask themselves on a prosecution under this wording is, did the accused, on the facts which have been brought before us, assist the enemy? To that simple question they could give an answer of acquittal or conviction.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether there is any significance to the fact that the words "by any means whatever" have been dropped? What is the difference between assisting on the one hand, and assisting in any way whatever on the other?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The draftsmen tell me that they were left out because, much in line with the reasoning I have been attempting to lay before the hon. member, they do not add anything to the word "assisting". "Assisting" means assisting in any way whatever.


Percy Ellis Wright: As a layman, I should like to ask the minister this question. Supposing a person or a company were trading with, let us say, China. It is lawful to trade with China except in certain prohibited materials. Could they, under this act, be accused of assisting the enemy? If it were lawful to do so under one act, could they, under this act, be convicted of doing something that was lawful under that other act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Earlier in my remarks, I indicated that one of the indispensable ingredients of any crime under the code was mens rea. In the case to which the hon. member is referring it would be necessary to bring home to the accused, who under our law as the hon. member knows is innocent until he is proven guilty, that he did not only assist the enemy forces but he knew that he was assisting the enemy forces and he did so with a guilty mind. Within those three qualifications, the only answer to a question of that sort in any given case is the jury's verdict.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The great body of Canadians, Mr. Chairman, are laymen, not lawyers or

members of parliament. They know we are at war with China, without any fooling or diplomatic correspondence about the silly thing at all. The diplomats are walking around with eggs in their shoes, because they are afraid they might bring on an allout war; that is the truth of the situation. The people of Canada, not the lawyers but just John Citizen, are wondering how many times we are going to have an undeclared war where our men and women are being killed in defence of this country and our principles. How much longer are we going to ship munitions to a country, whether they are wrapped up in packing cases or cellophane or any other-


The Deputy Chairman:: I am quite ready to listen to the argument of the hon. member, but this bill has no connection with the shipping of munitions of war to another country. I think the hon. member's remarks are linked to the hypothetical cases which have been introduced, and upon which the minister has given answers, I hope the hon. member will make his remarks pertinent to the section.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking of the laymen, the great majority of the people in Canada, not the lawyers. I am not sure whether they are fortunate or unfortunate. I am just John Citizen, a member of parliament. I want to know if this is what we need in order to make sure that the only people who can ship to the countries with whom we are at war will be the government. Everyone else will be so afraid they are going to break this particular law that they will not even ship cream puffs. I do not want to see the enemy starve. If we want to send them some wheat, let the government do it. I am afraid when the laymen get into that business and it is not under the direct supervision of the government, grenades will be underneath the wheat that is shipped. I am sorry to say that even natural-born Canadians might be involved in actions of that kind. With the great majority of people, we cannot afford to take a chance.
I am hoping that this section is what we have been trying to get for three wars. I am hoping it will stop shipment of anything out of this country that will be useful to the enemy in killing our men and women. There should not be any pussyfooting on this amendment. It should be quite clear and concise, not stepping all around the situation and saying: Well, if a man does not know that steel can be made into a hand grenade or a 25-pounder, if he cannot prove that in his heart he knew that, if he is just a simpleton, we have to let it go at that, and find that, three weeks later, grenades made of that
Criminal Code
simple bar of steel are being chucked back at our men. That sort of thing must stop. The people of Canada are crying for it.
I only hope that the minister knows what the people of Canada want and that he has, beyond doubt, put the necessary teeth into this amendment so that there may be no more skating on such thin ice, as has been done repeatedly in the past right until there is a declaration of war, right until the enemy stock up enough munitions to come out with a war. Munitions were being continually shipped in the first great war and the second great war, and even now it is going on. I hope that the minister knows what the people of Canada are praying for, and that the teeth are in this amendment beyond any shadow of doubt, to such an extent that no person will dare to do this because he would be afraid he is breaking the law, for fear that he will be put against the wall and have his brains blown out, as he justly deserves to have done. I hope that provision is in this amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened with interest to what the Minister of Justice said with regard to the proposition advanced to him by the hon. member for Nanaimo. Am I right in understanding the minister to say that a crew on a ship such as the hon. member for Nanaimo described, a Chinese crew sailing into Chinese ports, would be subject to any prosecution under this legislation?


Mr. Lesage:: No, no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that I would much prefer to have my language speak for itself in Hansard.


Jean Lesage: They do not owe allegiance to the king.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend may have his language speak for itself. It certainly was unintelligible if it was speaking for itself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon, friend should speak for himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. My hon. friend answered the hon. member for Nanaimo and he said that under the circumstances such a person, if he could be brought before a Canadian court, would be subject to prosecution. That is utter nonsense. These men owe no fealty whatever to His Majesty the King if they are Chinese nationalists. I ask the minister this question: Does he say that because a Chinese crew is on a ship of Canadian registry, they therefore become liable in treason in Canada? May I repeat the question after the minister has consulted and had an opportunity of a second guess? Does the minister suggest that a Chinese crew

Criminal Code
that would be on a ship of Canadian registry, sailing munitions into China, a country at war, would be guilty under this offence? I ask the minister that question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that I prefaced my reply'-in fact, I am quite sure that I did so -by the assumption that the accused in the case in question has been successfully brought before a Canadian court.


John George Diefenbaker: But whether successfully brought before a Canadian court or not, suppose they are alien Chinese.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the cases that have been discussed here, those are alien Chinese on a ship, as I understood the hon. member for ' Nanaimo-and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong-of Canadian registry.


George Randolph Pearkes: A ship of Canadian registry, flying the Canadian flag.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Right.


George Randolph Pearkes: And granted special exemption to do so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If it were possible to bring them before a Canadian court, then I think the consequences which I stated would follow. But I clearly indicated that, before you can try them, you must get them here; and that is the great problem.


John George Diefenbaker: But before you try them, they have to owe allegiance to the king of Canada.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: What allegiance do these people-as Chinese on a Canadian ship or ship of Canadian registry-owe to Canada? I have the authorities here, and I should like greatly to hear what the minister says.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend is getting into a cross-examination.


John George Diefenbaker: No. I am getting at the facts.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite all right. I have no objection in the world; but I think he is getting into a cross-examination on some of these fine points.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure he realizes that my end of this thing is being conducted on an extemporaneous basis. But if my hon. friend wants an answer to the question on that basis-I would not give it as a formal opinion; I would not sign my name to it at this moment-I will give it. Under the exigencies of this questioning I would say offhand that a Canadian ship is a Canadian territory, and that an alien Chinese on Canadian territory,

committing treason against Canada, would be in the same position as an alien would be in if, within Canadian territory in Canada, he had committed treason against His Majesty here. Not only is that the case, but in the very case to which my hon. friend himself referred not so long ago, the case of The King v. Joyce, he will remember that this was the case of a United States citizen who committed treason against Great Britain, not in Great Britain but in Germany.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He was afterwards convicted because he held nothing more of British origin than merely a British passport.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And he owed some allegiance to Great Britain on that account. I want to say that I am not in the habit of handing out legal opinions offhand in this way; but since my hon. friend has raised the point, may I say that I think that so far as these Chinese aliens that he speaks about are concerned, if they are on a Canadian ship or Canadian territory, I think the question of law that he raises would be answered in the manner I have indicated.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to thank the minister for that opinion. When the house passes this bill I hope that, having regard to the fact that on June 16 the Foreign Trade magazine of Canada stated that one of these Ming Sung ships has been and is now engaged in taking repatriates to Canton-in other words, taking communists to Canton-the proper action will be taken against these people for thereby contravening the provisions of this new amendment.


Jean Lesage: That is not army personnel, or enemy personnel.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there a difference between taking personnel to a country where ultimately they may fight against us and taking army personnel? That is exactly what is wrong with this type of legislation. If the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is right, this legislation does not cover such a case. It is an extremely serious situation if we are going to continue to allow ships under Canadian registry to be used to repatriate Chinese, as admitted by the Department of Trade and Commerce in the issue of June 16 of Foreign Trade, and to take them back into Canton. Surely something will be done in this regard. I asked the question-and I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo had the same motive- in an earnest desire to see whether or not the amendments that are being passed really have in them the teeth that the hon. member for

Simcoe North mentioned or are merely window dressing. Here is an opportunity to use them. It seems passing strange that a crew of Chinese, no doubt communists or they would not be getting into Canton, travel on a Canadian ship with a Canadian flag. We can hear them sing: O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
I say I would like to see this cover cases such as that. In view of the fact that the minister-though he is not supported by the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-and the responsible officer, says, "If we can actually take them in custody, then they are subject to punishment under this act, because they are on a Canadian ship"-then, that being so, when they are in Hong Kong, in a British possession, would it not now be open to the government to stop the things that have been going on and that were brought before the house by the hon. member for Nanaimo?


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Chairman, with reference to that rabbit the minister was going to take out of the hat a little while ago, and assuming the facts brought forward in connection with the Ming Sung controversy to be established, and forgetting whether a jury would or would not convict, in law, would the directorate at Montreal be liable, under the law, to a conviction?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I am always most anxious and willing to co-operate in matters of this kind. I do suggest however that the question the hon. member has asked is not necessarily connected with the section before the house.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Why?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the simple reason that to answer my hon. friend's question, as my hon. friend who is a lawyer probably knows -it may be that is why he has asked it- one would have to have a good deal of clari* fication as to whether the people he speaks about knew about this, whether they had a guilty mind. As my hon. friend knows-and I am sure he does know-particularly in a charge of treason the guilty mind is of the essence; and unless that is brought home to the accused person it is impossible to establish a conviction. I do not mind answering hypothetical questions within reason, but I must draw the line at that one.


Gordon Francis Higgins: We say that these people have a guilty mind, and you know what they are doing. Then what?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It is up to a jury to decide whether they have a guilty mind or not.


Mr. Fulion:: I would ask the minister to enlighten me as to whether or not this section, in its present form, would be sufficient
Criminal Code
to cover a person who is not assisting the actual armed forces of a country against whose armed forces Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, but a person who gives general assistance to that country, not specifically related to its armed forces.
I have in mind a case such as that which was reported recently. That was the case of Mrs. Roscoe Rodd, who as someone has just pointed out, come originally from Windsor, Ontario. She broadcast the results of her alleged visit to Korea. Her broadcast material included certain references which were hostile to, and certainly not intended to assist, the cause of the United Nations, of whose forces the Canadian brigade forms a part.
I ask this question because the section is confined to a person who assists any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities. It seems to me that a skilful defence counsel might very well raise the defence that such person was not directly assisting the armed forces of that country, but was simply broadcasting an expression of opinion. I should like to know whether this section is sufficient to cover a case such as that, which it seems to me is clearly in broad general terms a case of treason. But, because we are not at war with China or Korea officially or legally, it might be argued that the mere act of broadcasting in favour of China or Korea, which it would be said is not assisting their armed forces, would not be brought within this section.
If the intention of the section is to cover the case of a person giving aid and comfort to the country with whose forces our forces are engaged in hostilities, although we are not legally at war with that country, would the minister say this section is broad enough to cover the case of Mrs. Rodd?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, as I said, I am exceedingly anxious to co-operate as much as I can; but to ask me to prophesy with regard to a set of facts which may be only partially recorded in the newspapers, and then to ask me if that set of facts is covered by the section, is I suggest hardly fair. I would find it exceedingly difficult to do so. My hon. friend is a lawyer, and he is asking me in effect to express a legal opinion upon a set of facts on which he would never dream of expressing a legal opinion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am not asking the minister to do that. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I do not wish to be narrowly technical. I take it the intention of the section is to enable us to deal with persons who go out of Canada and who, if I may use the
4640

Criminal Code
general expression, give aid and comfort to a country which would be described as an enemy, except for the fact that we are not legally at war with it. That is why the original words of this section are being amended.
It seems to me that when reference is made to a person who assists the armed forces of such a country, you may have to prove that the aid or assistance was given directly to the armed forces. Because, as my hon. friend knows without my mentioning it, when you are attempting to prove a charge under the Criminal Code you have to relate the evidence specifically to the intent of the charge.
I am wondering whether it would not be safer if, as I take it, the intention of the section is broadly speaking to cover such treasonable acts, to use some such words as I shall suggest-and in doing so I am not trying to be narrowly technical. I am just trying to cover the general case, because it seems clear to me that Mrs. Rodd was guilty of treason, whether or not she could be found guilty under the present wording of the act.
It does seem to me we would cover a case such as that if we used these words: "Assisting while in or out of Canada any country against whose armed forces Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities." In this way the offence is the assisting of the country, which is a more general term than the armed forces of the country.
That is the proposal I place before the minister. I believe if we are going to make it workable we must make it cover such cases as treasonable activities of the kind indulged in by Mrs. Rodd.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps I can answer now, because I believe I understand the question better. As the hon. member for Lake Centre indicated earlier today, the present provision is a great departure; there is no doubt about that. It is designed to deal with a situation which is illustrated by what has happened in Korea, a situation where we may be engaging armed forces the identity of whose country may be somewhat open to question. My hon. friend shakes his head; but I suggest that in the news we get back from Korea, indicating that we are opposed against this branch or that branch of the armed forces, we are not too sure whether they are North Koreans, Chinese or others. And when we are dealing with a situation of that kind, in drafting this legislation we have related it, as my hon. friend correctly points out, to the armed forces; because that is the definite thing with which we can connect the legislation.

For my own part, I would not want to recommend any change in that. I am sure the draftsmen of the statute would not want to change it, because these points my hon. friend has raised were all very carefully considered in the drafting of what I suppose is one of the first examples of this kind of thing to be attempted anywhere. The hon. member for Lake Centre is probably right in his surmise that there is no precedent for what we are attempting to do here.


John George Diefenbaker: It is more than a surmise because I looked over the statutes in England and the United States.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then the hon. member is
doubly right. I am sure that he and the hon. member for Kamloops will approve of our having used caution in drafting this section which we think will hold water for what it purports to do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall not press the minister to give a legal opinion on a hypothetical set of circumstances, but is he able to say whether the officers who drafted this bill had in mind that broadcasts such as those undertaken by Mrs. Rodd or by Joyce would be construed as giving aid or assistance to the armed forces? Is that the assumption on which this section is drawn?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will not my hon. friend
agree with me that whether a broadcast was considered as assisting the enemy would depend altogether upon the circumstances under which the broadcast was carried on. If the broadcasting was done from army headquarters in Korea to the armed forces in an effort to incite when translated into their language, it might be one thing. I am always hesitant about tying myself down in connection with a hypothetical case, but I think under those circumstances you might still bring home a charge to the accused although the jury might throw it out. If the broadcasting were done under a different set of circumstances it might not by any conceivable concept of the matter be considered as giving assistance to the armed forces. I think my hon. friend will agree with that statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. That is why I feel that there should be something by way of seeking to make any act of aiding the enemy or hostile country a treasonable offence. We have, for the very reason the minister has given, to make it clear that such assistance is not necessarily confined to direct assistance to the armed forces of a hostile country, but is in fact any act which assists a country against whose forces we are engaged in hostilities, even though a legal state of war may not exist.

The minister put his finger upon the very difficulty I envisaged, and that is that it might well be held by a jury that this type of broadcast did not directly assist the armed forces of that country, yet the broadcast may have been made with the direct intention of assisting the country although it had no relationship necessarily to the armed forces of that country.
I realize that you cannot go too far in one jump, but it seems to me that here we have a section with the clear intent of making it a treasonable offence to assist the country with whose forces Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, and yet we stop short of expressing the whole offence in proper legal language. We express only a very narrow part of that offence, the part which is perhaps the least likely to take place, that is giving assistance to the armed forces of that country. It seems to me that with the legal language in the section as it stands we have stopped far short of the actual intent which we had in mind when we set out the purport of the section itself.


John George Diefenbaker: There is just one thing in connection with that. I do not think anyone reading that section could ever conclude that it would be an offence under that section to do the things referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops. It would be going a considerable way to make it an offence punishable with death to broadcast unless it directly incited or assisted the enemy. However, as this happened in Canada, I think the sections dealing with sedition would cover it. If any alleged offence has been committed by this woman in broadcasting or if anyone else aroused disaffection to His Majesty and his subjects, it would likely be an offence under the section dealing with sedition, sedition being defined as follows:
Sedition consists in acts, words, or writings intended or calculated, under the circumstances of the time, to disturb the tranquility of the state, by creating ill-will, discontent, disaffection, hatred or contempt towards the person of the King, or towards the constitution or parliament, or the government, or the established institutions of the country, or by exciting ill-will between different classes of the King's subjects, or encouraging any class of them to endeavour to disobey, defy, or subvert the laws or resist their execution, or to do any act of violence or outrage, or endangering the public peace.
If any offence was committed, it would be committed under that section which of course is subject to the following proviso:
133A. No one shall be deemed to have a seditious intention only because he intends in good faith,-
(a)	to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures; or
(b)	to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the United Kingdom, or of any part of it, or of Canada or any province thereof, or in either house of parliament of the United
Criminal Code
Kingdom or of Canada, or in any legislature, or in the administration of justice; or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in the state, or,
(c)	to point out, in order to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of hatred and ill-will between different classes of His Majesty's subjects.
If these alleged broadcasts suggested by my hon. friend are what he indicates they are, an offence might very well have been committed under the sedition section which is designed to cover cases such as those that have been mentioned. Lord Haw Haw, or Joyce, was convicted of broadcasting, not because of the disaffection set up by his broadcasts, but because of his incitement to the commission by people under the King's jurisdiction of acts to destroy the state from within. In view of what my hon. friend has brought to his attention, in view of what has appeared in the press, I suggest that the minister have the law officers give consideration to the use of the section in question where and if in the opinion of the officers an offence has been committed beyond what is allowed under the head of freedom of speech.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am glad the hon. member who has just spoken has brought that matter to the minister's attention because only a few minutes ago the minister said that he as Minister of Justice was not so sure what kind of troops were actually fighting in Korea; he was not quite positive whether they were Chinese troops or Russian troops. I strongly advise the minister to get firmly established in his mind without any further delay that there are Chinese fighting against the countries of the United Nations, that there are actually Chinese trained soldiers, armed by Russia, fighting in South Korea.
Only a few minutes ago he made the statement that he was not quite sure whether there were Chinese trained soldiers fighting against our men. The minister must be in an awful frame of mind when trying to make the laws of Canada if at this late date he is not quite positive that there are Chinese trained men fighting and killing our men in Korea.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course the point was not whether they were Chinese, but whether they were soldiers of the Chinese government or perhaps only Chinese volunteers in North Korea serving under the North Korean government. I do not want to labour this point. I have great respect for the hon. member for Simcoe North, and I would not want to get into an argument with him on any subject at all.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Particularly this one.

Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But if in the context of discussion as to whether the treason is for dealing with the enemy itself rather than the armed forces of the enemy, if you are identifying the enemy as being the government which controls the armed forces you must have regard to whether they are Chinese volunteers in the Korean army or whether they are Chinese soldiers in the Chinese army. I should imagine there may be cases on the Korean front where that question might be rather difficult to establish, and as to whether you might not even have some Chinese soldiers in the Russian army, or vice versa.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: There is a resemblance between the Koreans and the Chinese. There is no doubt that I could not pick out one and say he was a Chinese trained by the Chinese and armed by the Russians or a South or North Korean, but I am positive the minister can obtain absolute proof that these are out and out Chinese communists fighting in North and South Korea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the outset I was a bit concerned about this clause, but I must say I am glad to hear that it does not go as far as the hon. member for Kamloops would like it to go.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because it seems to me that along with our responsibility to devise laws that protect the security of the state we also have the responsibility to see to it that we do not completely whittle away our civil liberties. It seems to me one of the civil liberties we must protect is the right to discuss the policies of this nation even in relation to any war in which we might be engaged. If the position taken by the hon. member for Kamloops were the law, I can think of excellent speeches made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs which might make him subject to a charge of treason. He has gone out and said that we cannot defeat communism by military means. The kind of interpretation that the hon. member for Kamloops is advising could result in such statements being regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Lake Centre suggest that if anything is to be done against a person because of something that he has said or broadcast it should come under another section, but I think even when we get to that other section we have to be careful. I realize how carefully one has to pick his words when he is discussing these matters today, and I repeat what I said a moment ago as to our responsibility to devise the kind of laws that protect the state. We have a difficult time in this day and age, a

difficulty that the great proponents of liberalism in the last century did not have to deal with. We have the difficulty of people using the very freedoms that we espouse to try to destroy our freedoms. Nevertheless we must hold on to our freedoms-our civil liberties- and I am glad to know, as I have already said, that this section does not go as far as the hon. member for Kamloops wanted it to go.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would not say anything about that except that I want to answer the assumption by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre by which he has taken to himself the role of being the sole guardian of civil liberties in this house. The interpretation which he placed deliberately upon the sentiments which I expressed goes so far beyond what is reasonable, probable, natural or in any way to be assumed as being my intention, that it becomes ridiculous. It is, I think, an interpretation which he placed upon it simply in an effort to portray himself as the great guardian of civil liberties and to portray those of us who are concerned with these treasonable acts as persons who would unduly abridge civil liberties in this country, a situation which he knows perfectly well does not exist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Answer your own colleague's criticism.


Mr. Croll:: Would you answer a question, please?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall endeavour to do so.


David Arnold Croll: Did I understand you to say earlier in the debate that in your opinion the lady in question was guilty of an offence?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of treason.


David Arnold Croll: Of treason. I wondered whether I had heard you correctly. I thought I heard you say that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I asked the Minister of Justice whether this section-


David Arnold Croll: No, please. You do not have to answer the question, but I was going to make a few remarks and I did not want to misquote you. I thought I heard you say that. Did you or did you not? If you did not we will leave it at that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suppose Hansard will show what I said.


David Arnold Croll: It will be too late for me then.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the hon. member asking? He does not want me to clarify his question.


David Arnold Croll: I thought I heard the hon. member say in the discussion that in his opinion the lady in question was guilty of treason.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think what 1 said was that, on the basis of the newspaper reports we have received, the actions of this lady, if the reports are correct, are giving aid and assistance to a country with whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities. I asked the Minister of Justice whether or not, if the newspaper reports are correct and that was the nature of her actions, her actions would be covered by this section. It seems to me her actions are treasonable and should be covered by this section if that was the nature of her act. That is what I said.


Mr. Low:: I do not know whether I quite get what the hon. member for Kamloops is asking, but perhaps I can embody it in this question for the Minister of Justice. Will it be possible under section 3 to prosecute a person who assists a country not at war with Canada, but whose forces are engaged in hostilities with Canada, even if such assistance is not directed to the armed forces of the country?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is my question exactly, and if I might be permitted another word, based upon the newspaper reports which we have received, it seems to me that Mrs. Rodd's actions were exactly of the nature described by the hon. member for Peace River. That is what I said, and if that is the case do her actions come within the ambit of this section? If that was the nature of her actions I think it should be brought within the ambit of this section. I have no hesitation in saying that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to answer the question of the hon. member for Peace River unqualified by any remarks by the hon. member for Kamloops. No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was exactly my question in the first place.


Solon Earl Low: The answer is "no"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer is no.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Justice has said quite correctly that this constitutes quite a great departure in principle from the existing law. When he has been asked certain questions with respect to the possible application of this section he has indicated that, while he is ready to co-operate, to use his words, he seems to think there is some limit to the extent to which he should go in seeking to explain to the committee just what the effect of this would be. I think one of the difficulties confronting hon. members is to understand exactly how far it does go. It seems to me that, before members adopt an amendment which is a great departure in principle, they should know exactly what it is they are doing. The Minister of Justice has already had his attention drawn to two very famous
Criminal Code
cases relating to conduct such as might be embraced by an amendment of this kind. One was the famous trial of Sir Roger Casement in 1917, and the other the more recent trial of William Joyce in 1945. The defence in the Casement case sought to protect the position of their client by asserting that the offence if any had taken place outside the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom. The question of his citizenship did not enter into the defence. In the Joyce case the question of where the offence took place did not assume the same importance. The important thing in that defence was whether or not Joyce owed an allegiance to His Majesty the King, and further what the nature of that allegiance was. In response to the hon. member for Lake Centre, who pointed out the importance of that consideration, I understood the Minister of Justice to indicate that we need not be unduly concerned as to the allegiance or nationality of the individual in view of the fact that Joyce was an American citizen who happened to have a British passport. Would the minister indicate whether that is a correct interpretation of what he said?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not precisely. In connection with the question that had been asked my point was that these alien Chinese sailors on the vessels in question, under Canadian registry and under the Canadian flag, were in effect on Canadian territory, the law being that anyone who commits treason on Canadian territory, even though he may owe no allegiance to Canada, can be charged with and convicted of that treason. It was not quite the point my hon. friend has made. It has nothing to do with the Joyce case except that that case established a principle of somewhat the same order in saying that instead of being on British territory he was operating under a British passport and in that capacity owed allegiance to the British crown.


John George Diefenbaker: To the extent of the protection he received.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, in the same way that a person on Canadian territory, whether that territory be in Canada or a Canadian ship, and whether that person be an alien or not, owes allegiance to His Majesty as the King of Canada.


George Alexander Drew: I am raising this question because this is the high court of Canada in which at this time laws are being made of immense consequence to the people of Canada. For that reason no one need apologize for seeking to clarify in every possible way the legal consequences of the amendment and the explanations given as to precedents. For that reason I would point out

Criminal Code
that there seems to be some misapprehension as to how it was that Joyce was found guilty. In that case the indictment left no doubt that it was necessary to establish that he did owe a positive allegiance to the king. The original indictment read "a person owing allegiance to our lord the king." Then when the question arose as to whether that was a sufficient measure of obligation to the crown the attorney general, representing the crown, indicated that he wanted no doubt as to the measure of obligation that was under consideration, and moved to amend the indictment so that it would read "British subject owing allegiance to our lord the king." In other words this was not simply an American citizen who happened to have the protection of a British passport; it was a British subject. In the arguments before the court it was quite frankly admitted that unless they were prepared to find that he was a British subject their case might fall on that ground alone. The point upon which the court was able to find that he was a British subject and therefore came under the indictment was in these words: that at the time he applied for his passport he made a declaration which used these words:
I, the undersigned, William Joyce, hereby declare that I am a British subject by birth, having been born at Rutledge Terrace, Galway, Ireland, on the 24th day of April, 1906, and not having lost the status of British subject thus acquired, I hereby apply for a passport for travelling.
That was the declaration which, in spite of certain attempts to show that Joyce had acquired citizenship in the United States, was used as the basis for the argument that ultimately led to his being found guilty under the wording in the indictment which I read. I have referred to that for this reason. I hope we shall not be placed in the position of accepting pious declarations as to our intention to deal effectively with activities of the nature contemplated by an amendment of this kind, if in fact the amendment does not do what we want it to do. This is the time to be sure that if we are going to deal with treason of this kind, in other words with these communist traitors, our laws will make it possible to do so effectively. As I understand, the questions were directed to the minister so that this house could have some information as to whether in fact this amendment was more than a general declaration that those who assisted an enemy with whom we were at war, or the armed forces fighting against our forces even though a state of war had not been declared, could in fact be found guilty under the Criminal Code. I would like to know the basis upon which the minister thinks this amendment will be adequate to deal with the sort of case that has
IMr. Drew.l
been under discussion, and how he thinks it would be effective in meeting the kind of situation that has been described. Moreover, while I agree with the statement of the minister as to the difficulty of outlining all possible circumstances, I do think we should have placed before us some examples of the acts of treason which in his opinion would be dealt with under this section and which could not now be dealt with under the Criminal Code.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege just before the minister answers, I am now given to understand that in the question I asked the minister having relation to the case of Mrs. Rodd, I said the broadcast to which I had reference, which I felt should come under this section, was made after her return to Canada, and I gather that this statement gave rise to the question by the hon. member for Spadina. If I said that I was not expressing the thought I had in mind. I do not recollect saying it, and I certainly did not mean to say it. I understood clearly from the press reports to which I had reference that her broadcast was made in Korea, and that it was made while she was in North Korea. It was in reference to an action of that kind that I asked whether that type of broadcast, in a country against whose forces Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, would come within the ambit of this section, the broadcast not necessarily being of direct assistance to the armed forces of that country but rather of general assistance to the country itself. I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion a broadcast made in those circumstances comes within the broad general definition of treason and should be within the ambit of this section. That would not apply to a broadcast made after her return to Canada, which as the hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out would come within the definition of sedition, and I certainly did not mean to refer to any broadcast but the one made in North Korea.
I wanted to clear up that point. My question had reference to the type of broadcast made by Joyce during the war and made by Mrs. Rodd in Korea under circumstances which are not war, because we are not legally at war, but which in effect was designed to aid a country against whose forces Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The leader of the opposition
has rightly said that this is a matter of considerable importance. He is also quite right in saying that we should do everything we can to make sure that before passing this section the members clearly understand what it means. After all the discussion that has taken place I must confess that I do not

Criminal Code
know of any better way of attempting a further clarification of this section than to start with the law as it stands now, and show the change that has been made by this section; then state what seems to me to be the effect of that section.
Section 74 of the Criminal Code starts out with the words "Treason is", and then,
(a) the act of killing His Majesty, or doing him any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, and the act of imprisoning or restraining him;
Then there are paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) "levying war against His Majesty . . and so on; (g), (h), and then the one we are now amending, paragraph (i) which reads as follows, taking in the first two words of the section:
Treason is,
(i) assisting any public enemy at war with His Majesty in such war by any means whatsoever;
Now, that is the law as it stands at the present time. That law, as I have indicated, being part of the Criminal Code applies, in terms of the Criminal Code and not of the common law or under this statute of Edward III, only where the act is committed within Canada. Now the first thing which our new section does is to provide that the assistance which constitutes the treason can take place either within Canada, as the law now states, or without Canada. Therefore, the section says "assisting", and then adds these words, "assisting, while in or out of Canada, an enemy at war with Canada." That is the first new principle, the new principle of extraterritoriality. Perhaps it is not new, and perhaps it is covered already under the common law or under this statute of Edward III, but at any rate this section removes any doubt that there might be upon that score and makes it clear that if anyone assists the enemy with whom we are at war, whether it is within Canada or out of Canada, he can be prosecuted and convicted under this section.
This clause then goes on to say, "or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are." In other words, in order to support a charge of treason under the law as it now stands it would be necessary, as one of the points that had to be proven in the prosecution, to show that Canada was at war with the other country; whereas under this new provision it is not necessary to show that we are at war with any country. We can show merely that our armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the armed forces of some other state, whether there is a condition of war between us or not. Now, that is a very
new departure in principle, because the cases which the leader of the opposition has cited could not have resulted in a conviction on the circumstances of the Korean situation. Sir Roger Casement and William Joyce were both accused of treason where there had been a formal declaration of war between the United Kingdom and the country against whom the United Kingdom was at that time at war.
Those are the two principles which are involved in the bill. I do not know how I can elucidate them any further than I have. I believe part of the confusion has arisen in connection with this discussion from the fact that the leader of the opposition has correctly stated treason is an offence which is a violation of the allegiance which the subject owes to the king. The hon. member is quite right in stating that. I gathered that the point which he was making, in terms of the question previously asked by the member for Nanaimo, was "How could these Chinese alien sailors on a Canadian ship be convicted of treason since they do not owe allegiance to the king of Canada?" It is true that they do not owe allegiance in the sense in which the hon. leader of the opposition uses that word. But the allegiance necessary to support a charge of treason, as I have had occasion to remark in other debates on other occasions, is not only the allegiance which is owed by someone who may have sworn an oath of allegiance to the king, but it is as set out in Crankshaw's "Criminal Code", and which in turn is a quotation from Halsbury's "Laws of England":
The essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance which is owed to the king; and this allegiance is owed, not only by subjects of the king, but also by an alien living in this country, and receiving the protection of its laws, so long as he is a resident here, even if the state to which he belongs is at war with the king.
Even though he may owe allegiance to his state, while he is in this state he owes allegiance to the king, in this context. So that if an alien has lived in this country under the protection of the laws, and the state of which he is a subject invades the territories and the alien assists the invader, which may be within the terms of his own allegiance to his king, the alien is guilty of treason.
As I said before I dislike intensely giving off-the-cuff opinions, but my offhand opinion is that these alien Chinese, who owe no allegiance to the king of Canada, in the narrow sense, yet if they were as aliens upon Canadian territory, namely a ship of Canadian registry flying the Canadian flag, I should think the probabilities would be that, in that capacity, they would owe sufficient allegiance to the Canadian crown

Criminal Code
to support a charge of treason; and therefore, upon a proper set of circumstances being proven against them, they could be convicted of treason under this new section we are considering.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest a rereading of this - section in order to cover the situation that we are trying to guard against. This section make it an offence,
(1) assisting, while in or out of Canada, any enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are,
In other words, originally the law of treason provided that a person was guilty of that offence if he was guilty of assisting any enemy at war with Canada. Let us take the example mentioned by the hon. member for Kamloops. Somebody leaves Canada, goes over to Korea, broadcasts over there, tells the Koreans and the Chinese communists that they are right, that Canadians know they are right, that Canadians are forced to fight over there, and that the United Nations organization has no business to be there. When that person afterwards returns to Canada, in my submission that person under the law as it is now constituted is guilty of no offence. That person is not guilty of sedition because the only jurisdiction under the law of sedition as it now stands is as to any offence committed within Canada. If that were not so, the offence of treason would be wherever it is committed, under whatever circumstances. I suggest that a slight rewording of this section would cover the situation.
I suggest that it be reworded in this way:
Assisting, while in or out of Canada, any enemy at war with Canada, or any country with which Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are,


Edmund Davie Fulton: Any country with whose armed forces Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities.


John George Diefenbaker: Alternative suggestions can be made. But as the section is now worded, assisting an enemy at war with Canada is the offence of treason as it is now constituted.
My hon. friend says he wants to cover a situation of assisting any country that, while not actively at war with Canada, is in direct hostilities with the forces of Canada, whether or not a declaration of war has been made. That is the situation that is to be covered. If that be so, I suggest a couple of changes there would effect the desired result. As it is now, if a person went over to China, or went to Korea and did any act at all to assist Korea other than assisting the armed forces, he would not be guilty of treason. I do not
[Mr. Garson.l
think it was ever intended to limit the offence in that way. The offence that we are now creating is that of assisting any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities. That does not cover assisting the nation whose armed forces are engaged in hostilities with Canada.
I point that out most definitely, and I ask the minister to follow those words, because what it means is this. If a person went over to Korea and supplied the government of Korea with assistance, he would not be guilty of treason under the section which parliament is asked to pass. It is only when it is assistance of the armed forces, not of the nation as such. As it now stands, I submit that a person could go over to Korea, get on the radio and do what Lord Haw Haw did, namely, make the most incendiary of speeches, condemn Canada out of hand, as well as the commonwealth and the United Nations, and there would be no offence under that section and he would not be subject to punishment for sedition either because of the position in which the alleged offence was committed. I ask the minister whether he has given consideration to that point. I know how in 1940, again under the exigencies of the moment, we passed the Treachery Act. It was going to be an act that would protect Canada from within. As a matter of fact we rushed it through so fast and in my opinion it had so many loopholes in it that it was never used during the entire period of the war. In this legislation, as it is now drafted, I feel that we are leaving a loophole through which any guilty Canadian could escape by simply saying:	If I had
assisted an enemy at war, I would have been guilty; but because of the fact that I was assisting a country against which Canada is engaged in hostilities by reason of her obligation under the United Nations, I am not guilty of any attempt because I did not assist the armed forces.
To me the situation is most clear, and it was not as I listened to it read and reread. After all, that is the way-out of discussion- that we Anally arrived at a conclusion. We are not trying to prejudice the minister in any way. We are trying to make this something more than merely a delusion. We want to make it a treasonable act for Canadians to use their citizenship in order to go abroad and there to assist the government of Korea or of any other nation with which, in the future, we may not be officially at war as a nation but will be in the position of a punitive agency under the United Nations. We want to deny to Canadians the opportunity to use their citizenship abroad in effect to destroy Canada's efforts in that regard and to endanger human lives, and the opportunity

to say that by reason of the fact that they do not directly assist the enemy they are guilty of no offence. I ask the minister whether he will give consideration to an alteration. As it stands now the crown has to prove that what was done assisted the armed forces, if the offence is committed abroad. If treason is committed with nations with which we are at war, what has to be established is that the assistance was to the enemy at war. But if it is an enemy with which we are not at war, you have to prove that the assistance was of the armed forces and not the enemy as such.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, Thomas Wang, manager of the Ming Sung Shipping Company, gave an interview to The Ensign newspaper. In that interview he praised the efficiency of the communist regime and declared that agrarian reform in China was designed to make everybody happy. Am I correct in saying that if the Chinese in Korea were regarded as not being volunteers, that statement would be regarded as'treasonable? If so, how far are you going to go with this fiction of volunteers? How did the Chinese get in Korea?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When my hon. friend asked his question, the page was speaking to me and I did not catch the whole of it. Would he mind repeating it?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes. An interview is reported in the newspaper The Ensign and it is given by Thomas Wang.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is Thomas Wang?


Gordon Francis Higgins: He is manager of the Ming Sung Shipping Company, 1410 Stanley street, Montreal. He states, or it is stated in the paper, that he praised the efficiency of the communist regime and declared that the agrarian reform in China was designed to make everybody happy. I say that if you did not recognize the fiction of these Chinese in Korea being volunteers, that statement would be regarded as treasonable or seditious. Just on that point as to volunteers, it strikes me as a fiction, because how do these volunteers get-there? As the minister knows, some time last August, I believe it was, the Prime Minister of China, Mao Tse-tung told the United Nations that if they crossed the 38th parallel the Chinese troops would be sent in. The parallel was crossed, and the Chinese troops were sent in.
Where is this fiction of volunteers to begin and end? I cannot see it myself. I think we have to be fair about this; we must be honest in recognizing these Chinese for what they are. I would ask the minister to comment.
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I have any comment to offer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to follow up what the hon. member for Lake Centre said a moment ago because, with his usual clarity, he has stated in much shorter form the point I wish to lay before the minister, and which I was trying to make earlier this afternoon. However, it appears to have become somewhat confused, because, if I did say so, I said inadvertently that the broadcast was made in Canada. My comment was made upon a broadcast made in a country with which we were engaged in hostilities. I hope I shall have permission to make the correction, if it was the other way.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has put the point clearly, that this broadcast was made to give comfort, and to assist the country itself. We have a case which can be discussed, not hypothetically but factually. It is not the Chinese communist troops regarding whom there may be some controversy, as to whether they are volunteers or actually Chinese government troops, but rather the country of North Korea, with whose troops we are engaged-and there can surely be no question about it, that it is with those troops that Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities at this time.
If a person makes a broadcast in North Korea designed to give assistance to the country of North Korea, although of no immediate assistance to the armed forces of North Korea, or if, as was suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre, a person actually gives financial aid to the government of North Korea, but not arms or equipment to the army of North Korea, does that person come within the purview of the section? I do not think he or she does, because in the case of the country with whom there is no legal state of war-and that covers both North Korea and communist China-the section confines itself to giving assistance to the armed forces of that country.
Surely no one will argue that the making of a broadcast in that country, in support generally of the country with whose troops we are engaged in this or in any of the other forms of assistance, other than assistance to the armed forces, is not equally treasonable, but it does seem to me that that is not covered by this section, and that was the question I raised at the outset.
The question, then, was asked clearly by the hon. member for Peace River, and has been put equally clearly by the hon. member for Lake Centre. As I understood the minister, in replying to the hon. member for Peace River, when that hon. member asked the question I had asked, or had intended to ask,

Criminal Code
he said that such action would not be covered by the statute. I think it should be covered, and I have suggested the wording.
May I suggest again the wording which I believe would cover this. My suggestion is that the words-
-or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities-
Should read:
-or any country against whose armed forces Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities-
It seems to me that would cover it, because surely assisting a country must embrace assisting the armed forces. So that you have not excluded assistance of the armed forces. You have preserved that, but have enlarged it to include assistance generally of the country.
Would the minister answer this? Unless the minister can advance some reason why it should not be done, I am inclined to offer it as an amendment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I feel we have almost exhausted the possibilities of this topic as a subject of discussion. I do not know that I can elucidate the matter further than I have attempted to do already.
There is this fact my hon. friends should keep in mind, and that is that we are really not at war in Korea. We are engaged in a police action of the United Nations which we all most devoutly hope will not result in a war, but in the very opposite of a war. As a matter of fact the proceedings this afternoon were opened by a question of the leader of the opposition upon the government's attitude toward a suggestion made by the Russian representative to the United Nations with respect to the possibility of a cease-fire arrangement.
In this clause we have attempted to invoke a new principle growing out of and related to circumstances, not of war but of this police action. The hon. members ask us to give consideration to these matters they have raised. We have given consideration to them, and this section as it stands represents our best judgment. My hon. friends may not agree with us, but we think that in introducing this new principle we have gone quite far, and this is as far as we are inclined to go. It is not an offhanded opinion; it is our carefully considered judgment in the matter.
Let me take one example of the sort of difficulty we may encounter under the suggestions which have been made by hon. members in the opposition, particularly the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Kamloops. Supposing some Canadian is engaged in the treasonable activity of smuggling arms in to the armed [Mr. Fulton.l	'
forces, and it is desired to prosecute the traitor. All that would be necessary, under the section as it now stands, would be to prove what happened. The offence would then take place in relation to the armed forces.
But if we had to identify the nation for whom those armed forces were acting, our prosecution might fail; because if we could not identify the nation we could not prove that we were assisting that nation as the enemy to whose armed forces the arms were being run. So we need not suppose for one moment that if we change the wording from what it is now to this other wording we are necessarily making matters easier. We may make them much more embarrassing for effectual enforcement of this clause.
The fact we are faced with in Korea is this, not that we are at war, but that in the course of police action which we are taking as part of the United Nations forces in that country we are faced with soldiers on the other side fighting us. We have drafted a section under which that is the only thing of which we have to take cognizance. Any assistance given to these soldiers is an offence.
There has been a great deal of discussion at one time or another as to whether there should or should not be normal trade-I do not mean trade in critical materials or materials of war-carried on between Canada and these other countries. There is a large body of responsible and sincere opinion in the United Kingdom and other nations of the United Nations which feels that ordinary peaceful trade should be carried on. If we adopted the language advocated by the hon. member for Kamloops I think he will be the first to admit that you would immediately create a condition of affairs under which it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to give effect to that body of opinion. I want to emphasize that I am not saying that that opinion is right or wrong, but what we have attempted to do in the Department of Justice is to draft a clause which would invoke a new principle in such a way that we could make it effective in a practical manner without creating a lot of embarrassment to the policies of the United Nations.
We think that after giving consideration to all these matters which have been raised by members of the opposition and others- we were able to give it longer attention than has been possible this afternoon-this wording represents our best judgment as to the most effective manner of dealing with the question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the difficulty
which the minister has mentioned although I do not admit that it is insurmountable. It

is perhaps not fair to put a definite question, but I will put what I want to say in the form of a general question. Surely the minister will agree with me that an act such as broadcasting, to which reference has been made, in hostile territory, and of a nature favourable to the hostile country, is actually a treasonable act? Yet the minister said earlier this afternoon, as I understood him, that such an act is not embraced within the section as it now stands.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not say any such thing.
What I said was to the effect that if under a set of facts it was possible to commence a prosecution for treason under this clause, and to establish that the broadcast in question had the effect of granting assistance which the clause contemplates, then it would be possible for a jury to find a verdict of guilty. I do not know what language I could employ to make my meaning any more clear. My hon. friend as a lawyer knows perfectly well that you can pass all the laws you like, but when under those laws you prosecute people you have to prove your case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Quite-if it can be proved
that the broadcast or act in question did in fact assist the armed forces then it would be within the section. I am not going to push the minister any further on that at the moment, but I understood the minister to say earlier in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Peace River that such a set of circumstances as referred to in connection with the Rodd case would not be within the section. However, I shall deal with the minister's most recent answer. I must take it from that answer that there could be a number of cases where broadcasts were designed to assist an enemy country but carefully framed so as not to give direct assistance to the armed forces of that country and they would by that very fact not be within the ambit of this section.
May I just complete my argument so that the minister will understand what I am driving at. I think we are all agreed that such acts are in essence treasonable. All we are asking is that the scope of the section be enlarged slightly so as to embrace such acts and make then treasonable in law, and yet avoid the embarrassment which the minister has foreseen and which he has just described where a person is supplying goods which assist the other country but where it is difficult to prove that the armed forces against whom we are engaged are in fact part of the official army of the country itself. The amendment which I have suggested is
Criminal Code
not, I think, open to the objection the minister has mentioned. It would still be necessary to prove that the armed forces of the country were engaged in hostilities and that they are in fact the armed forces, say of China.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Supposing you could not
prove it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you could not prove that,
then a broadcast in aid of China would not be within the ambit of the section. The minister foresees international complications, and I am trying to avoid them. If it cannot be proved in a court of law that these Chinese individuals who are fighting in Korea are in fact the armed forces of the Chinese government, then I agree that you could not have a conviction against the person who made a broadcast in support of China.
But if it can be proved that the armed forces of Korea are in fact engaged in hostilities with the Canadian forces, then it would be within the section to make it treason to make a broadcast in Korea in support of Korea. In the amendment which I have suggested we are using the words "or any country against whose armed forces Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities" and I suggest that they meet that difficulty.
If it can be proved that Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities with the armed forces of Korea, then to make a broadcast in support of Korea is an act of treason. If it cannot be proved that Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities with the armed forces of China, then to make a broadcast in support of China would not be treason within the section. It seems to me that the amendment meets the difficulty the minister foresees.


Jean Lesage: Suppose it could be proved?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it could be proved that we are engaged in hostilities with the forces of China it should be treason for a Canadian to make a broadcast, in China, in favour of China.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend a question about something rather more tangible than broadcasting? Supposing a Canadian is treasonably smuggling arms to some cove in Korea where they are picked up by the forces and used against Canadians. Supposing that person is prosecuted for treason and it is not possible, as I do not think it would be, to prove that the particular men who received those particular arms were volunteers in the Korean army or in the Chinese army: would you want to have the

Criminal Code
whole prosecution fall because you were unable to identify the enemy nation under the wording you have suggested?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely if you can prove, and you have to prove under the minister's present wording, that those arms and equipment-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Went to the armed forces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -went to the armed forces, would you not under the minister's wording have to prove that they were assisting a country against whose armed forces Canada was engaged in conflict?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me that if you could prove the one, you could always prove the other, because they are the armed forces.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to extend this argument simply for the purpose of extending the debate on this section. When the minister raises the point that it might be difficult to obtain a conviction under such amendment in whatever actual wording it might be interpreted, I would point out how difficult it is going to be to obtain a conviction under this section as now drafted. I do not like passing an amendment simply as a gesture if I do not think it is going to produce some results. This strikes out the old subsection of the section in the Criminal Code dealing with the various definitions of treason. It strikes out paragraph (i) of subsection 1 of section 74, and the words it strikes out are, "assisting any public enemy at war with His Majesty in such war by any means whatsoever." In this case the suggested amendment, after striking out those words, would provide that it was an offence to assist, while in or out of Canada, any enemy at war with Canada. So far that is the same as the old section even if there is a slight change in that it provides "in or out of Canada." In that respect I repeat the observation I have made as to the difficulty of extending the law unless they are Canadian citizens or British subjects, but we will leave that for the moment.
It then goes on to the second thing that is regarded as important and that is the situation that the Minister of Justice has described as new, where forces sent from Canada along with forces from other countries are actively engaged in a deadly war with an enemy supplied by a nation against whom there has been no declaration of war. An attempt is made to provide an offence where there is assistance to those undeclared enemies. The way that the amendment would do it is to provide that it is an attempt to assist any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities.

May I point out that the proof would be almost an impossibility. How are you going to prove it is helping the enemy forces? Are you going to take an officer you have captured and have him swear that he was assisted in a certain battle by supplies he got? Are you going to be able to call into the witness box people from the enemy forces and have them declare that a broadcast was of assistance to those forces? How are you going to prove it? Surely it would not be acceptable evidence for someone on our side to say that they thought that the enemy must have obtained some benefit from the broadcast,	weapons or supplies which
reached it.
I do not think it is possible to prove, except in the most unlikely case, that assistance actually reached the armed forces, but it is easy enough in many cases to prove that assistance reached the nation from which those armed forces come. So far as I am concerned, I think we should stop pussyfooting. We are at war with China under its present government. We may not be in a declared war but this war as it stands at the present time is a war that has already killed more men than were killed in the whole Pacific war in the first year after Pearl Harbor. It is true that it is not a declared war, but let us, without suggesting that it is necessary for us to declare a war, admit that, while we seek peace with China on terms that are honourable and that will lay a foundation for peace, we also recognize the fact that from their statements in conferences they have attended, from the broadcasts that have been received by our monitors, the government of China is not only accepting responsibility for the Chinese troops in Korea but is boasting to their own people what those troops are doing.
Therefore we know perfectly well that the nation that is supplying the troops against whom our troops are fighting is communist China, not the people of China but the China of today under a communist government, just as we were dealing a few years ago with the Germany of Hitler although we thought that there were many decent Germans, and just as we were dealing with the Italy of Mussolini although we thought there were many decent Italians. We must deal with the nation as it is, and we are dealing with a nation under a government which boasts of the achievements of its armed men in Korea. I think the time has come when, far from seeking to define our enemies in a way that we shall not give offence to those who might trade with them, we should say we want laws that will make it impossible to trade with those people until we have established a basis of

peace, and that we do not want an amendment which we simply cannot possibly hope to enforce on the basis of any evidence available.
I do not want to reduce this matter to a basis any less serious than it really is, but as I was looking at some figures with respect to the war in Korea I could not help noticing an advertisement with the words, "What might the Mings have done with Alcoa aluminum?" That happens to be a by-product of certain aluminum products. Obviously this is not referring to the Ming Sung company but there are certain Mings connected with it who can do a great deal with aluminum if they see fit. They are doing a lot of things with other products that undoubtedly in some way are assisting those against whom we are fighting at the present time.
The minister has left the impression this afternoon that in certain cases this amendment might make it possible to deal with those who are operating these ships under Canadian registry if in fact it could be proved that the things they were delivering were of assistance to our enemies. I submit that under this amendment they could not because they are carrying the things such as they are carrying to Canton, to a great seaport of the nation which provides the troops, but there is no suggestion they are carrying these things to the seaports along the Korean coast. Yet unless we had people who could go there, see what was taking place and give evidence in a court that they had actually seen the delivery of these things to the men against whom we are fighting, this section would be absolutely ineffective. Unless the Minister of Justice, in whatever words he sees fit, is prepared to go so far as to make it an offence to deliver to the nation from which the armed forces are provided who are fighting against our troops without a declaration of war, then I submit this section can have no value whatever, and I do not think we should be called upon to pass it.


Mr. Pouliol:: I regret very much the discussion that is taking place because we are not at war with anybody. The United Nations are policing Korea. We are not at war. There has been no declaration of war, as my hon. friend and everybody else knows.


Solon Earl Low: We are just kidding ourselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is an abnormal situation. By virtue of international law, which everybody knows, we are either at peace or at war with other nations, and in the Korean adventure conditions are different. There has been no declaration of war, and in normal times the matter would be viewed sternly by international jurists, but Ihe books
Criminal Code
on international law are kept on the shelves of public and private libraries. In order to meet the objection of the leader of the opposition and his brilliant and young colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops


George Alexander Drew: I am sure we all envy him his youth.


Jean-François Pouliot: I envy his brilliance and his youth. If the leader of the opposition only envies his youth it is because he is too modest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which one of them is modest?


Jean-François Pouliot: Both, all of us. The amendment I suggest would read thus "(i) assisting while in or out of Canada any person resisting the policing of any country by the United Nations and by Canada, or any enemy at war with Canada" and so on. In view of the fact that there has been no declaration of war we cannot speak of anyone who is at war with Canada. Canada is not at war with any country. Everybody has said it, and I will call all the experts of the Department of External Affairs one after the other to establish that we are not at war with anyone; we are policing. It is a new interpretation of international law, but it is agreed by Trygve Lie and all the superior minds in the United Nations that we are not at war with anybody.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member when he has extended such courtesies to us, but I would ask him this. If there is no war, what is it they are trying to arrange a peace about?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will interrupt my remarks to answer my hon. friend and tell him that while Truman says "the United States is ready to talk peace but it must be real", according to the five o'clock edition of the newspapers, he does not say we are at war with China. If my hon. friend will be patient and let me finish my argument I am sure he will agree with me. In the first place he will agree that in virtue of the modern international law, not as it is taught in universities but as it is practised in this world, Canada is not at war with anybody. We were at war during the first and second world wars. We were at war during the South African war. We were at war with the Indians in the first days of the colony. At the present time we are at war with no one though our soldiers go there with guns and ammunition and shoot the Chinese and others. We are just policing the world for the United Nations, and this must be taken into account in drafting our law, because our law must apply not to the past but to the present and future. My hon. friend will admit that. What is the use of adopting legislation that is inoperative and

Criminal Code
will serve only for academic discussion? My hon. friend mentions war and says we are at war with China. If that is the case the legislation cannot operate because in theory we are not. I admit it is a very strange situation, but we must take it as it is.
Therefore very seriously I suggest to the minister that he add something concerning policing and resistance to the policing of any country by the United Nations. The minister, who is a learned jurist and who has had experience as minister for quite a long time, must realize the value of that argument. You cannot catch a bear with a mouse trap. I submit the matter to him. I do not insist, since we are about to end the session, but this is a serious matter which deserves the consideration of everyone, the Department of Justice as well as the opposition. Now I challenge the expert jurists of the opposition group; I will ask my genial friend from Lake Centre in all honesty to tell us if we are officially at war with any country now. To be at war we must have made a declaration of war. There is none. We are just trying to improve the morals of the Asiatics by sending men with munitions of war to police them. Instead of using the big stick we see in the hands of the constables of any municipal police force or the stick that adorns the uniform of the constables of the House of Commons, our soldiers go there with rifles and bullets and bayonets. They act just the same as though they were at war, but they are not at war juridically, and my hon. friend will admit that they are not at war.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Therefore the amendment is as we say in French un coup d'epee dans l'eau. That is all. I ask the minister to kindly take this into consideration and see to it that the law operates according to the anomalies and very strange conditions of our day in international affairs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it we are agreed that the desirable thing would be to prevent people from going to other countries and giving them assistance and aid, provided that aid benefits a country with whose forces we are engaged in hostilities. We think the section could be enlarged to cover the larger offence, and in order to bring the matter to an issue I move:
That the clause be amended by deleting the words "or any armed forces against whom the Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities" where they occur at lines 33 and 34, and substituting therefor the following: "or any country against whose armed forces Canadian forces are engaged1 in hostilities."


Jean-François Pouliot: This is not an improvement. Canada is not engaged in hostilities in any country.


John George Diefenbaker: That language is used in the government's amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; but if you please I have asked the government to kindly modify that amendment, and I say the same thing to my hon. friend. There is no hostility legally. There is no hostility on the part of Canada in sending troops to Korea, because they do not go there to fight anyone; they go there to maintain peace just the same as a constable does.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend finds those words acceptable, "or the armed forces of Canada are engaged in military operations" I would ask permission to substitute those words for the words in my amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am making progress, and I thank the hon. gentleman.	Hostilityenmity, and the word "enmity" as well as enemy contains an element of warfare; so much so that the dictionary goes on, "state of warfare, acts of warfare, opposition in thought," etc. Opposition in thought is hostility, but it is parliamentary. I am satisfied with the progress made, and I hope the minister will accept the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the hope that the hon.
member for Temiscouata and the rest may arrive at an agreement may I ask, if it is agreeable to the committee, that the words "engaged in hostilities" be deleted and the words "engaged in military operations" be substituted therefor.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let us see the real meaning
of the word "military". Perhaps the hon. member will come to my suggestion to use the word "policy". It says "acts done by soldiers". As they are called soldiers and not constables, I would be satisfied with the words "military operations".


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the hon.
member leave to delete the words "engaged in hostilities" and substitute therefor "engaged in military operations" in his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 4-Assisting or harbouring deserters or absentees.
Mr. Nowlan:: This section amends the old
one which dealt with desertion. It now reads:
Everyone who aids, assists, harbours or conceals a person whom he knows is a deserter or an absentee without leave from the Canadian forces is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.
I wish the minister would give us some reason for including the words "or an absentee without leave". After all, as I understand it, qne only has to be a.w.o.l. for twenty-eight days when he becomes a deserter. Can you imagine any parent whose boy came home without leave not assisting him? I cannot understand why such a parent would have to be classed as a criminal and fined $500. I personally feel that the section should be left to deal with deserters only. If it does deal with persons absent without leave the words "aid and assist" should be left out. I would ask the minister to give us some explanation concerning this.
I would suggest that the words "absent without leave" be deleted or at any rate if they must remain for any good reason, certainly no prosecution should be instituted under this section except upon the representations of the attorney general of the province. I have an example in mind which occurred a few months ago. A lad came home on Christmas leave, and immediately after Christmas his mother had a heart attack. She lingered for ten or fourteen days and then died. By staying with his mother the young lad was a.w.o.l., but he was not a deserter. Under this section his father was liable to a fine because he aided and assisted a person who was absent without leave. I am suggesting that a person only has to be absent without leave for twenty-eight days- at least that used to be the case-when he automatically becomes a deserter. I think that section should be amended and the words "absent without leave" be deleted. At any rate some safeguard should be put in there, so that a prosecution could not be instituted by some neighbour who wished to cause trouble for some parent who aided a boy who came home and overstayed his leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I find the hon. member's
remarks rather impressive with regard to the absent without leave, and I can imagine a set of circumstances under which some spite work might be done. I do not think it would be fair to the attorneys general of the provinces to saddle this responsibility upon them, in respect of a federal statute. I would be willing to recommend to the committee that, where necessary, the Attorney General of Canada should be written into the act, if
Criminal Code
that would be all right. I think we shall draft a provision and have it moved after the dinner adjournment. Let the clause stand.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is all the difference in the world between absent without leave and desertion, because in desertion you have to prove the intent to desert whereas absence without leave might be due to accident or something of that sort. There is one other point I should like to make in connection with this section; should it not apply to a deserter from allied forces? I ask that question because we might have allied forces operating in Canada, and a deserter from those forces might be harboured by a Canadian citizen. It seems to me that there should be some clause to cover that point also.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This section of the bill is consequential upon the National Defence Act. I think what might be done is to examine the two statutes to see if the point my hon. friend introduces is not covered. If it is not, I can bring it up.
Section stands.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Possession of weapons.


Mr. Harkness:: In connection with section 117 which comes under section 7 of the bill, it says that:
Every one who carries concealed an offensive weapon other than a pistol or revolver is guilty-
Will the minister explain why it relates to weapons other than pistols and revolvers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is a revision and consolidation of the existing provisions of the code from sections 115 to 129. If my hon. friend will examine the provisions of section 117, as compared with the old provision 119 (1) (a), he will see that we have not made any particular change in substance. Pistols and revolvers are covered in section 122, subsections 1 and 2. Does that cover the point?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the minister mean that this provision that pistols or revolvers may be carried under permit is left out of this particular section but it occurs later in the act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is right.


Mr. Ferrie:: May I ask the minister how this works out with regard to boys who are coming home and who are carrying souvenirs? How does this provision work?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When they come home carrying souvenirs which are pistols or revolvers, they will have to comply with the act by registering them and getting the usual permit to have them. The man who has two or three

Criminal Code
pistols or revolvers like that gets those permits and carries them. I have known of several who have done that. As a matter of fact, if that provision were not made, it would be difficult to keep track of all the pistols and revolvers in the country. The purpose of this section is to do just that.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I am not kicking against the registration. What I am saying is that these boys pick up these revolvers and pistols and bring them home to this country as souvenirs. They keep them on them. They do not know anything about this act. It is a change. How are those boys going to be notified that when they bring these over they can be prosecuted and fined? They do not know anything about it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid that the old saw that ignorance of the law excuses no person happens to be a correct statement of the situation.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But in most cases a situation of that kind is covered by a little bit of discretion exercised either by the crown prosecutor, the police or the magistrate taking into consideration the fact that the accused appears to be quite innocent in not having known about these provisions. The point that my hon. friend is referring to applies of course to every law on the statute books in the country.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not every person knows of the existence of these laws, but they are there; and it is necessary to have the principle that people are supposed to know the law. Otherwise they would always have the excuse for breaking the law that they did not know it was the law.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Yes. But those boys are in Korea.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend will
likely find that, when they were coming back, the commanding officer of the forces would probably tell them, that if they were taking back any souvenirs of that sort they should register them.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would it not be contrary to the military regulations for any private individual to take enemy arms? They are all supposed to be turned in.


Mr. MacDougall:: But you know they do.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That is what a general would say. He says that they are not supposed to take them; but they take them and the general winks at it. Section 120 in section 7 of the bill prohibits anybody from using a

twenty-two or an air rifle up to the age of 14. I should like the minister to have that age reduced down to 12 for the simple reason that there are many boys who learn to shoot, to run tractors and everything else, and who carry these twenty-two rifles all the time for the purpose of shooting gophers. As for myself, at 13 I could shoot better than I can now.
There may be something to be said for what these fellows are talking about as far as they are concerned. But as far as western Canada is concerned, it is ridiculous. There is no doubt about that. Take the case of a young fellow who prides himself on having a twenty-two. If he is a young fellow 13 years of age, he has got to get rid of it.' Yet he goes out and shoots gophers, and does a job that is worth while. In the far north there are many occasions when a boy going to school must carry a twenty-two in order to protect himself. Why should the age be set at 14? Somebody has a bug in his ear that should be taken out.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under the existing law, a boy who is under the age of 14 must have a permit in order to have a twenty-two rifle. In view of what my hon. friend has said, it may be that that would be a preferable arrangement. What does the hon. member himself think about that? This whole code of regulations dealing with pistols and revolvers has been approved by the Chief Constables Association of Canada who have had a good deal of experience in enforcing provisions of this sort and whose views in the matter carry, I think, a great deal of weight. Certainly we have given them every consideration.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: In the case of the three western provinces, why not bring the age down to 12?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If we maintain the present rule that a permit is required by a boy of 14 or less, in order to have a twenty-two, I think that might perhaps meet the situation, perhaps we could let this section stand so that we could reconsider it.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Then he would have to have a permit from 12 to 14?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister where, in section 120, it is provided that a boy under the age of 14 has to have a permit.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Section 126. In re-enacting the sections, the draftsman is faced with the problem of having in the new enactment the same number of sections which will fit into the code and not disturb the sequence before and after. In doing that, he has not followed the same numerical order within that number

of sections in this small code dealing with pistols and revolvers. You will find that provision in section 126.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say is that it is a provision which has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. I think most boys on our farms-in the west, at any rate-have had twenty-two rifles, and sometimes larger ones, many years before the age of 14. It seems to me to be a rather bad provision to make it a crime to give a gun to a boy who was brought up on a farm, and where people have been accustomed to shooting gophers from the age of 9 or 10, in some cases. I see no real purpose to be served by this section. I wonder if the minister could tell us what real purpose is to be served by it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I must say that I am not an expert in this field but I should have thought that this proposed section, and the present section 126, since they apply to the whole of Canada-to both rural and urban parts-have been produced perhaps because in the cities and in the suburbs of the cities, some difficulty has arisen through the abuse of twenty-two rifles, by boys of that age. This abuse may have come to the attention of members of the chief constables association; and may have made them think that it is undesirable that boys under fourteen in their observation and experience, should have possession of a twenty-two rifle. I think my hon. friend will agree that there is some difference between a rural boy who has objects in nature to shoot at and the urban boy who has not, as to the situation that possession of a twenty-two rifle might create in one case as compared with the other. I think that the needs of both hon. members would be met by retaining the permit system from 14 years of age down. It is not a matter which I, as Minister of Justice, can take any cognizance of but I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend that this provision sometimes has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think possibly the trouble is with the definition. I agree with what has been said by the last two speakers. But I doubt if a twenty-two is included, when you look at your definition, you find that new section 129 defines firearms as follows:
"firearm" means a pistol, revolver or a firearm that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger;
I presume that means an automatic rifle. It therefore does not refer to the ordinary single-barrel twenty-two that is being carried by boys on the farm shooting gophers. I think that is one reason why that is in.
Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: That definition does not apply.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member will look at the section he will see it applies only to sections 121 to 128.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 4-Assisting or harbouring deserters or absentees.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if we could revert to section 4, line 4, of the bill. The associate editor of debates was kind enough to draw to my attention a grammatical error in that line; the word "whom" should be "who". I hope everyone will agree to that change being made. Then also in connection with the same section the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings suggested that there should be added after the word "dollars" in the new section 82 words that would provide for the consent of the Attorney General of Canada being obtained. Would the hon. member like to move that?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would move:
That Bill No. 391 be amended by adding immediately after the word "dollars" in line 43 on page two of the bill the words:
"But no proceedings shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Possession of weapons.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: It was suggested in connection with the proposed new section 120 that persons under the age of 14 years ought to have a permit to have a 22-rifle in their possession, rather than to be barred completely from the possession of such a gun. I have discussed the matter with the mounted police and they are quite sympathetic to the suggestion, although they point out that the chief constables association would prefer the section in the form in which it now is. We are quite agreeable to providing an amendment which would make the new section 120 read:
Everyone who sells, barters, gives, lends, transfers or delivers a firearm, air-gun or air-pistol or ammunition therefor, to a person under the age of 14 years who does not have a permit in form 760-
We are quite agreeable to making that proposed amendment, but that would involve at least three other amendments in this little code within the code. If it were agreeable to the committee, our thought was that we

Criminal Code
might have these amendments drafted and inserted in the bill when it is before the Senate. It will take a little care to do it and I am committing myself on Hansard that that will be done if it is agreeable.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: There are thousands of boys in Canada under the age of 14 years who have air-guns, air-pistols or 22-rifles. Are you going to make the limit 12 years or what?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The permit will be issued at the discretion of those who have the authority to do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would appreciate it if the minister would comment on the new section 127 that is being enacted by section 7 of this amending bill. In particular I would be glad to hear from the minister as to whether subsection 1 of section 127 is new in that it seems to provide for a peace officer to make certain searches without a warrant.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will refer to the present section 125 he will see that there is no substantial change from the law which has been in effect for many years. Where the police desire to make a search for pistols and revolvers experience has shown that they do need the powers of search to which my hon. friend is referring. This has been the law for a long while and we have merely re-enacted it in the new section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to have the minister point out to me any misunderstanding on my part, but it seems to me that the old section 125 as it stood related to the right of a peace officer to search any person, whereas the right being accorded by the new section 127(1) is the right to search without warrant a person, vehicle or premises other than a dwelling house. Does there not seem to be granted by the new section the right of entry into certain places without warrant which was not accorded by the section as it previously stood?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is right, but I
would imagine that the test of that is that a man's home is still preserved inviolate. But if he is suspected of harbouring an unregistered firearm in a vehicle, or in a hunting lodge, barn or any other place where he probably should not have it, they will then have the right to make the same kind of search which they previously had to make of his person.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to draw the
minister's attention to section 122 of the clause which we are considering. There are several subsections to it. Subsection 1 reads:
Every one is guilty of an offence who has an unregistered firearm in his dwelling house or place of business.

We will pass that one. There is provision for registration. I should like to draw the minister's attention to subsection 2. It reads:
Every one is guilty of an offence who has a firearm elsewhere than in his dwelling house or place of business, unless he has a valid permit in Form 76 or Form 76B	
Form 76B provides for transportation of a firearm. With reference to form 76, if the minister will look at section 125, subsection 4, he will find you can only get that permit if you certify that you need the firearm to protect your life, in connection with your profession, or for use in target practice at a range which has been approved by the attorney general of the province. The matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention is this. Rightly or wrongly the definition of firearm includes-we are dealing now with the specialized definition-[DOT] a revolver or pistol or automatic rifle. Rightly or wrongly many people, at least in eastern Canada, use automatic rifles when they go hunting. Whether or not they should' is perhaps a question of sportsmanship. It certainly does not affect the legality of it. This is the position in whidh you find yourself under this section. A man has to get a permit to take his rifle away from his own residence, and he can only obtain it if he certifies that he needs it to protect his life, for use in his profession or for use at a target range. Therefore he can never obtain a permit to take the rifle out in the woods when he goes hunting.
I am sure that was not the intention of the draftsmen of the section, and it is something which I think should receive the attention of the department. I am simply bringing it to the minister's attention. Personally I have not very much sympathy with people who go hunting with automatic rifles, but they are probably just as good citizens as I am, and I know they use them. It is impossible under the wording of the section to get a permit to take it away from your home into the woods. I draw that to the minister's attention and suggest that he give it some consideration.
Then I cannot understand subsection 3 which says that everyone who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which he knows there is a firearm is guilty of an offence unless some occupant has a certificate. With all deference, I suggest that is more reminiscent of the liquor acts and the bootlegging acts of twenty years ago. I may drive along the road with a rifle in my car, a firearm, and I pick up someone and take him along. I have not had the firearm registered. The person I may have picked up-it might be the minister or it might be my wife whom

I am taking for a drive or anyone else-is liable to be convicted of an offence because the firearm is there without proper registration. It seems to me that the section goes further than was ever intended by the minister, and I should like to have his comments.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That section has been in the
law for many years. There is nothing new in this section at all.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure there is. I do not want to enter into a discussion with the minister. The other section dealt with a revolver or pistol, which is an entirely different thing. I can quite understand why a revolver or pistol, a hidden or concealed weapon, is something to which the most stringent regulations must apply, although frankly I think the minister will admit they were not always effective. Now you are dealing with a rifle, a firearm, and it is an entirely different set-up from a hidden weapon. The minister is not correct when he says there is nothing new because the definition is new.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend's point really is that he objects to the result which is obtained by providing a new definition of firearm to include automatic rifle.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And by that act bringing the automatic rifle into this provision to which he has now referred.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We could give that some thought. Might I ask my hon. friend a question? Is not .the automatic rifle barred by the game laws of his province?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know. I have never used one myself, but I know many who do use them, and I doubt if they are barred. I know they are used in Nova Scotia.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend will find they are barred unless they can satisfy the game wardens that they are adjusted in such a way that they can only fire a limited number of shots.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course I am assuming an automatic rifle is what is intended by that definition. It says one that fires a number of bullets at one pressure of the trigger. However, I know that they are used in Nova Scotia and I know that they have a very efficient game warden service there. Therefore I cannot believe they are illegal if they can be used. Certainly they never can be used under this section.
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This provision was put in at the request of the chief constables association because they now regard these automatic rifles as much more dangerous weapons, for obvious reasons, than either pistols or revolvers. Of course what they have in mind chiefly are conditions in the large metropolitan cities where they are not used for the purpose of hunting game.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the minister will admit that all these regulations are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. We are trying to guard the public against the use of dangerous weapons. I think the minister will find that every murder that has been committed with a revolver was with a revolver that had never been registered. What I am objecting to-and I am sure the minister objects to it-is making involuntarily a large class of lawbreakers by prescribing certain statutory regulations which will not be followed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I would entirely agree because we have checked this on another occasion, and there are not such a large number of lawbreakers as my hon. friend might think. It is true the chaps who use these firearms for the purpose of committing crimes are breaking the law, and that they usually have not registered the firearms, but that is the least of their offences against the law.


Mr. Knight:: I should like to be perfectly
clear about section 127 of this clause. I should like to get an assurance from the minister that this search and seizure provision can apply only to arms, that this section deals altogether with firearms.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It seems to me that this is a
pretty wide power when one can enter without a warrant. If there was a warrant then the people would know why the peace officer was searching because he would produce his warrant and it would so stipulate. However, if there is no warrant and no stipulation as to the reason why the search is made, people are liable to be suspicious that the peace officer may be after something else. Is there anything to hinder a peace officer going in with the excuse of looking for firearms when he is really after something else? It looks like an interference with the liberty of the individual.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think if my hon. friend will read the language of the section he will see

Criminal Code
that perhaps it is not as far-reaching as he may suspect. The section reads:
Whenever a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that an offence is being committed or has been committed against any of the provisions of sections 115 to 123-
It is confined to those sections. The fact that the peace officer is proceeding without any warrant to back him up and is acting on his own responsibility, so that if he takes an action which is not upon reasonable grounds he is in for a great deal of trouble himself, I think in most cases would be a very effective deterrent to any abuse of this section. Actually I think you will find in practice that where an officer is clothed with power of this sort, which leaves it on his shoulders to decide whether the grounds are reasonable, he will be very cautious indeed in reaching an opinion as to whether the grounds are reasonable, and perhaps will not act under the authority granted by this section even in cases where he might be able to get authority in the form of a warrant from a magistrate.


George Clyde Nowlan: I want to draw the minister's attention to one more matter and then I am through. Section 122 (6) provides:
Everyone who buys or accepts in barter or as a gift a firearm is guilty of an offence if he receives delivery of it-
What happens, for instance, if a man dies and his rifle devolves to his son? It is really a gift; it may be a testamentary one. I am raising this as a serious matter because I am sure the minister, like the rest of us, wants to avoid making statutory criminals out of a lot of people and thereby perhaps creating more and more disrespect for the law. I think there is a weakness in that section which I would like the minister to look at anyway, and see if it can be overcome.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not agree that it really was a weakness, because the clause goes on to say "before it is registered in his name." The purpose here is the very obvious one of making certain that before John Doe takes over that firearm he has it registered in his name. In the case to which my hon. friend refers where the revolver, we will say, devolves to the son, all he has to do is say to the administrators or executors of the estate that he will not take delivery of it until they have it registered in his name. I think that provision is reasonable enough and necessary when we are dealing with instruments which are not only deadly weapons in themselves but which are used in the great majority of the crimes of violence that take place throughout the country. Apart from the question of the registration of firearms by respectable people, it is very much in the

interests of everyone that the strictest sort of provision be made regarding the registration of firearms generally.


George Clyde Nowlan: Far be it from me to quarrel with what the minister says about revolvers and pistols, but I am suggesting he has extended the definition to include rifles, at least automatic rifles. I know very well that many people in rural communities-I am certain of this in the east-in the first place will not know the law, and in the second place will not bother registering their rifles, so we will have a large class of involuntary lawbreakers, which is something we should avoid if we are to maintain proper respect for the law. I know the minister would like to get this bill through tonight, and I am not going to hold it up; but I would hope he might give some consideration to this point and provide for a difference between revolvers and pistols on the one hand and rifles on the other, so we will not have a large number of people breaking the law without knowing it. In many of these estates there are no executors; the son just takes over. What do you do in a case like that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if we could not meet my hon. friend's views in this way. The kind of firearm the chief constables association had in mind in this instance was what I believe is known in the trade as a typewriter or submachine gun. It may be that the definition we have put in here will include the type of automatic rifle to which my hon. friend has reference. I suggest that we pass this section and we will discuss the matter with the police. If they are satisfied to have a new wording which, would have the effect of exempting the automatic rifles to which my hon. friend refers, we could make that change in the Senate.


George Clyde Nowlan: That would be quite satisfactory to me.


Angus MacInnis: I am not quite satisfied with the reply the minister gave the hon. member for Saskatoon with regard to the provisions of section 127, which reads:
Whenever a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that an offence is being committed or has been committed-
How will it be decided that he did not have reasonable grounds? Suppose I am stopped on the street and searched by a policeman without a search warrant, and nothing is found. Where do I get my redress for what has happened? The sanctity of my person, or whatever the term may be, has been violated. Will it be up to me then to take action against the police officer; and where would the ordinary individual be in those circumstances?

Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Suppose my hon. friend is with friends at a hunting lodge shooting ducks, we will say, at a time when deer are out of season, and some officious minion of the law comes along and makes a general nuisance of himself searching all through the premises with no reasonable grounds for doing so. Perhaps he is searching for the kind of automatic rifle to which the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings referred a moment ago. I should think my hon. friend's first reaction would be to call up the game department of that province and raise a considerable amount of Cain about the sort of game wardens they employed. If in the course of this trespass-because that is what it would be if the officer did not have reasonable grounds-he committed an assault, an information could be laid against him on both those grounds. Then you would have the law enforcer up before the magistrate. Most of these officials are responsible. If before a man acts in a given case he has to decide whether he has reasonable grounds, he is not going to take that responsibility upon his own shoulders unless he is pretty sure the people into whose premises he is going have a prohibited firearm on the premises, or unless he feels that he can show his own superior officers or a magistrate that he actually had reasonable grounds for the action he took.


Angus MacInnis: But would it not be largely a matter of taking his word against mine? Generally speaking I suppose peace officers act fairly decently, but every now and then we hear of judges complaining that police officers have gone beyond their jurisdiction. I think the ordinary individual would want to know who was to pay for any action he was to take. He would hesitate, and would accept interference with his person and property rather than take action when the cards are stacked against him and it is his word against that of a peace officer. I think this section goes altogether too far.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Miscellaneous offences of a seditious nature.
John George Diefenbaker: 
Stuart Sinclair Garson: With all deference to my hon. friend, I was just asking my assistant to turn up the section of the code which would cover that. I think this is it:
Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object-


John George Diefenbaker: What section is that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Section 72. This is a general section, applying not only to this provision but to all offences under the act.
Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence intended whether under the circumstances it was possible to commit such offence or not.
That is to say, not only is he guilty-


John George Diefenbaker: There is no question about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question that comes at the problem from a little different angle? What protection is there for a person who by his utterances or opinions might have the effect, even unknown to him, of influencing some of these people to lessen their loyalty?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member looks at the last few words of the section:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years who wilfully...
The case my hon. friend is speaking about concerns one who unintentionally says something which has that effect. He would not be guilty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To quote again the kind of concrete example I was quoting this afternoon, and I know of no better example to take than the Secretary of State for External Affairs, supposing he, by the kind of forthright and excellent statement he has been

Criminal Code
making to the effect we cannot defeat communism by military means, has the effect of causing some of these people to cool off in their loyalty towards their military tasks, what protection would he have?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He does not do what he does with the will to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the forces or the mounted police. If that is purely a consequential result, and he does not have that as his own objective, then he is not guilty under the section. It is only when anyone makes a speech or has a writing or importunes or interferes or impairs the loyalty by acts which are designed for that purpose, and practically no other, that an offence is committed under this section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I really want to be sure of that, and I think all of us want to be sure, because the references here are sweeping. The references are to publishing, issuing, editing or ciroulating any writing and so on. Then there are these other words, advising, counselling, urging, etc. I take it that we can count on the fact that section 133A, which is now in the Criminal Code, would have a bearing on the kind of case I was talking about. For example, section 133A, which is just two sections farther down from this one, reads:
No one shall be deemed to have a seditious intention only because he intends in good faith,-
(a)	to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures; or
(b)	to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the United Kingdom, or of any part of it, or of Canada or any province thereof, or in either house of parliament of the United Kingdom or of Canada, or in any legislature, or in the administration of justice; or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in the state; or,
(c)	to point out, in order to their removal, matters which are producing feelings of hatred and ill-will between different classes of His Majesty's subjects.
I take it that those two sections will have to be read together, and that there is no question about the right of free speech in relation to matters of criticism of public policy, criticism of the government, and all the things that are traditional so long as the purpose is not as set out in this new section 132A.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With great deference I think the word "wilfully" in this section, apart altogether from section 133A to which my hon. friend referred, protects any person who has been indulging in discussion in good faith and not with the express purpose of trying to affect the loyalty of these persons or the mounted police.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true, is it not, that this is a new section? We have not had anything like it before in our Canadian Criminal Code.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that the minister, as a Liberal, has looked at it from the liberal standpoint to which I have been giving expression tonight?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Correct,


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Punishment for seditious words, seditious libel, seditious conspiracy.
John George Diefenbaker: This concerns the mere increase in the penalty. It is not so much the degree of the penalty as the enforcement that counts. Will the minister state how many convictions there have been under section 134 since 1935?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I could not give my hon. friend the exact number. It would not be large. I believe that in the case of some of the revelations arising out of the Gouzenko affair some charges were laid under this section. Some were laid under the Official Secrets Act. This penalty we have provided here of seven years is the same penalty that is provided under the Official Secrets Act. As my hon. friend knows it may be possible, under a given set of facts, for the crown to choose whether it will lay a charge under one act or the other, and in some cases a charge under each act may be laid. Under the present circumstances we thought that a penalty of two years for the crime of sedition was altogether inadequate, and that it should be raised to equality with the penalty under the Official Secrets Act.


Angus MacInnis: I think that in increasing the sentence from two years to seven years is a tremendous increase in the penalty for this crime. I appreciate that we are living in dangerous times, and we have to contend with people who have loyalty to another government in another country rather than our own. But surely if we have to adopt the suppressive laws of dictatorship to preserve democracy, then we have lost democracy. I believe that sometimes the words that are considered seditious are a bit flimsy and if a conviction were registered there would be a penalty of seven years instead of the two years. We should always bear in mind that convictions or actions under these sections are liable to be undertaken at times when the minds of people are disturbed, when we are living on the verge of hysteria. I think it is dangerous indeed to make this amendment to this section at the present time. I am not a lawyer and I am not accustomed to speaking in these terms on matters of this kind. But I think we are embarking on really dangerous ground.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: X should like to offer one or two comments in connection with my hon. friend's observations. In the first place, I am sure he realizes that this is the maximum sentence. The judge or the magistrate can impose any lesser sentence that he wishes to impose. His judgment as to sentence is subject to appeal. Then the accused or the convicted person has the right to apply for pardon or for remission of a portion of the sentence.
In addition to that, would my hon. friend not agree that what we are really measuring here is that period of sentence which, under the conditions of today, is the proper maximum sentence? I should think that, under present conditions-which are greatly different from what they were, say, two or three years ago before we were engaged in hostilities although not in war-the crime of sedition is a much more serious one than it was then; and that it is easy enough to imagine a set of circumstances in which the crime of sedition would be serious enough to warrant a sentence of seven years. From that it does not follow by any means that all of the sentences under this section are going to be seven years. One might be for six months; another might be for seven months; another might be for two months; or sentence might be suspended. But where the circumstances are extremely heinous, the magistrate or the judge is given discretion to give a sentence up to seven years.


Angus MacInnis: The provision for a sentence of not more than two years was in the old section; and the same conditions apply to that term as the minister now applies to the term of seven years. My mind goes back to the conditions prevailing in this country during and shortly after world war I, and to the conditions prevailing in the United States during the same period, when some of the most vicious sentences were imposed for trivial matters. I say again that we are losing out in our way of life when we increase the penalties for crimes that have been in our Criminal Code from time immemorial.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a few comments
that I should like to make. First, I should be interested in any remarks the minister might care to make on the fact that the section we just passed a moment ago, namely section 132A, seemed to spell out, once we got the full definition of that word "wilfully", fairly serious offences. Yet under section 132A, the imprisonment was set at five years. Section 134 seems to be not quite as serious-although maybe I am wrong; I should like the minister to explain it-and yet the penalty can be higher. It can be seven years.
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is not the answer to that
question a fairly obvious one? Although there are perhaps a number of cases of sedition where the offence on the facts would not be perhaps as serious as an offence under 132A, one can imagine cases of sedition which would be so serious that they would greatly transcend anything that could be done under section 132A.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In that connection may I
point out that section 133 defines seditious words, seditious intentions, and so on and subsection 4 of section 133 of the code reads as follows:
Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression "seditious intention," everyone shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who publishes, or circulates any writing, printing or document in which it is advocated, or who teaches or advocates, the use, without the authority of law, of force, as a means of accomplishing any governmental change within Canada.
Can the minister tell me whether there have been any cases in recent years where charges of sedition have been for offences less serious than that which is spelled out in that section, or has that come to be more or less the common definition of seditious intention, despite the phrase which says that the definition is not limited thereto?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The word "sedition" will
include everything from the utterances of Jehovah's Witnesses to the utterances upon which Mr. Tim Buck was convicted back in the 1930's. One of the charges against him was that of sedition. The reason why there is this range of penalty, which we think is proper under present conditions, is that it is one thing to commit the offence of sedition in the piping times of peace when sedition can be indulged in without any grave danger to the country, and it is an altogether different thing to commit the offence of sedition at the present time; and it would be even more serious if it were committed during war itself. For that reason we justify the provision that we have here, and the difference between the penalty under section 132A and the one under this present section.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I want to thank the minister for the inclusion of this provision in the Criminal Code. I hope that it will have the effect of suppressing communist propaganda.


John Horne Blackmore: Now that most people
are supposed to have undying loyalty and adoration for the United Nations, rather than Canada, and a wide variety of new outgrowths of imaginings a while ago, I wonder whether or not we are going to have a detailed list of definitions of sedition. I cannot figure out just how a person would know when he was seditious.

Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not know whether it
will reassure my hon. friend if I tell him that the commission we have consolidating the Criminal Code is at present engaged in what is regarded by draftsmen as a quite ambitious undertaking, namely that of defining sedition in terms of what sedition is under the common law. We are expecting them to report fairly shortly. We are going to get that report some time before we thought it would be available, because we have made better progress than we thought we would. When that comes to hand we will be laying it before hon. members.


Angus MacInnis: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Lethbridge is quite pertinent, because I do not think there is any particular definition of what words are seditious. I remember that a person who later became a member of this house was arrested for publishing seditious libel or making seditious utterances, and one of the charges against him was in respect of several passages from the book of Isaiah. Some of the other passages were from the program of the British Labour party.
The point is that when people become hysterical they will not stop at anything. It is too bad that we have in the law provisions which give them opportunity for discharging duties when they are in an hysterical condition, and when their actions are not based upon law or motivated by law, but based upon and motivated by fear, such as was the case at that time. Any improvement that has come in the lives of the common people has come by the removal of these laws, rather than the multiplication of them.


John Horne Blackmore: We see examples of
things that might give a person cause for wonder, in what is occurring in Canada. I do not recall that ever in this House of Commons, or anywhere else in public where the people's representatives have been assembled, there has been a discussion of the advisability of eliminating the word "dominion" from the name of this nation. The Dominion of Canada is what I was taught to revere, but for some reason or other the word "dominion" is now being left out. There seems to be a movement afoot to make it a sort of faux pas for a person to refer to the "Dominion of Canada"; he is supposed to refer to "Canada".
No one knows how all this has happened, or at whose instance. If things like that are going on, apparently through some sort of ministerial or governmental decree, rather than by an expression of will by the representatives of the people, and if a somewhat

analogous situation develops in respect of this wonderful new United Nations, or the British commonwealth, or the British empire, then I can see the time is coming when people will be at their wit's end to know when they are doing that which is appropriate.
I hope this list of definitions of sedition will be comprehensive and widely publicized. I hope it will be made readily available to everyone who might be in danger of committing an offence against the law of sedition.


Mr. Fleming:: Has the commission which is engaged on the revision of the Criminal Code submitted any of the amendments contained in the bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, they have not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Were they consulted about
any of them?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; for example, this revision of the sections relating to revolvers and pistols was done at the instance, pretty much, of the mounted police, who submitted the matter to the chief constables association. As my hon. friend knows, no doubt, from year to year we have tried to tidy up certain parts of the Criminal Code, and send it on to them for any further observation they may wish to make upon it, but leaving to them the more difficult parts to revise. We expect we will have something to submit to the house by, I should think, perhaps the session of 1952.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was aware to some extent
of the progress being made by the commission revising the code; but it strikes me as strange that when that commission is engaged on this task, a task which at least in part is parallel to the task embodied in the bill before us, apparently there has not been consultation with the commission in regard to the extensive amendments contained in the bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps I can explain it to my hon. friend by drawing this distinction: as he knows, the code has not been overhauled, actually, since 1892. In the interval of time which has elapsed since then, the substance of it, consisting of a lot of changes which have been made from time to time and without too much consideration for reconciling them in terms of one another, has got pretty much involved. The task to which we have set the Criminal Code revision commission is that of revising and consolidating the form of the code, as distinguished from its substance. These amendments which we are bringing down to the

house from year to year, such as the present group of amendments, are the ones in which we are more concerned. Naturally one is always concerned with the form in any kind of statute; but we are more concerned with the changes in substance than we are with form. When changes in substance are involved we have been handling them in the department; and then when the substance goes into the law books in the form which we have given it, it is turned over to the other commission and they work it into their material in the manner which they think is proper.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I am in
favour of this article, as well as of the padlock law, which Mr. King did not-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Disallow-


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not thank Mr. King
for not disallowing it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. King did not disallow
that legislation on account of a memorandum I sent to him, and which will be published by his estate in fifty years-if I do not make it public before.


Solon Earl Low: It will be history then.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad my hon. friend speaks about history, because nobody seems to have any knowledge of the fundamentals of history in this House of Commons. If we speak history, people say that it is an unfair criticism-and I am not saying that with reference to the hon. member who has spoken, but rather with reference to a recent occurrence in the house, when everyone was shocked by the truth.
Canada is a place where we cannot tell the truth. But I try to; sometimes I am successful, and sometimes I am not.
But, Mr. Chairman, this may be very good legislation in the hands of a gentleman like the present minister; but it may be very bad legislation under a different minister; and it may be bad legislation with a good minister and a bad staff-as happened during the war in virtue of the defence regulations, when the leader of the opposition and Mr. Chaloult were both arrested, for nothing. The charge that was laid against the present leader of the opposition was withdrawn. Mr. Chaloult had to undergo trial before a judge, and he won.
The memory of some of the members of the press gallery is quite short. Two members of the press gallery were appointed censors, one being a former journalist and one an active member of the gallery. Both these men laid charges against a journalist
Criminal Code
from Toronto and a journalist from Montreal. I looked after the case and fortunately it was dropped. These two members of the press gallery, these two Judas Iscariots, tried to send to jail two of their confreres because they did not agree with the views of the leader of the government at that time.
I got in touch with the former minister of justice, Mr. Lapointe, and his secretary, both of whom are now dead. I got in touch also with the secretary of Mr. King, who is still alive. I wanted to make sure that those two journalists were not sent to jail. The minister of justice was in Portugal at the time.
Those two censors were awful. I hope the minister will see to it that nothing is done without his approval and in that case I feel sure everybody will have real security. Otherwise they will have none. If the administration of an act like that is left in the hands of bureaucrats no one will know who will be the first to suffer. That is why we must be very careful about it. I am not a protagonist of human rights and so-called fundamental freedoms, but I do not want my fellow citizens to be sent to jail without reason.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Making improper use of the mails.
John George Diefenbaker: What is the purpose of this change? Two years ago the hon. member for Kamloops fathered a measure which was passed by this house to do away with crime comics. Crime comics disappeared and pornographic comics took their place. I should like to know what situation requires this alteration in wording? The words in the present section are, "who posts for transmission or delivery by or through the post", and the words being substituted are, "who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think hon. members will agree upon reflection that wherever an offence against this section 209 takes place it is desirable that if the accused is guilty he should not get off by reason of the crown's inability to bring home to him the act for which he is certainly responsible. Very often the crown when prosecuting under this section has been able to prove that the letter was sent through the mail because it was brought to them by the person who had received it through the mail, but it might be impossible to prove within the terms of

Criminal Code
the existing wording that the accused had! posted the letter. The present section reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who posts for transmission or delivery by or through the post any letter-
As I said a moment ago, we may be able to prove that he used the mails for the purpose of getting the letter to John Doe to whom it was addressed, and yet you may not be able to prove that he posted it. In 99 cases out of 100 he never would have posted it; it would have been posted by some person else. We are substituting words which we think will enable us to secure a conviction only in those cases in which a conviction should be secured. We think that in those cases in which a conviction should be secured we should not fail to get that conviction because we cannot prove that the accused posted the letter himself.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said that very often it was impossible to prove that the accused had posted the letter or document in question and I should like to ask if there had been any prosecutions under this section in the last five years?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, there have not. I think perhaps the Postmaster General could answer that question because for reasons that are obvious other methods of dealing with this particular problem are used.


John George Diefenbaker: The reason I asked was that the minister said that in many cases it was impossible to prove.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is conceivable that in many cases it would be impossible to prove.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This confines the offence to making use of the mails; but supposing a man used his own trucking system to bring in material of this sort and distribute it. Is there some other clause that would deal with that? This seems to be confined to the one method of giving currency to this objectionable type of literature.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This has to do only with the use of the mails; it does not purport to do anything else. In those cases we would have to rely upon other sections of the code.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was just asking whether that obviously alternative means of distribution is covered.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Section 207 reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who knowingly without lawful justification or excuse,
(a) makes, manufactures, or sells, or exposes for sale or to public view, or distributes or circulates, or causes to be distributed or circulated, or has in his possession for sale, distribution or circulation, or assists in such making, manufacture, sale, exposure, having in possession, distribution or circulation,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether it is possible for a person to use express services to distribute the kind of things that are prohibited by this section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would not the difficulty about an express service be that you would not get the kind of distribution that you would want, for example, in the sale of fraudulent securities or anything of that sort, or of obscene books for that matter? So far as the section I have just been reading is concerned, with respect to obscene or immoral books or pictures, if you used an express service you would then be guilty of distribution or circulation. Therefore you would be not guilty under section 209 but you would become guilty under section 207.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Loitering or wandering in or near school ground or playground.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the house will be glad to see this clause being inserted in the code as a step in the right direction, having regard to the degree of public alarm over the multiplicity of sexual offences, particularly those committed against young girls. Has any thought been given to extending the scope of section 13? It applies now only to cases of individuals who have already been convicted of sexual offences and who are loitering or wandering in or near a school ground or playground. Has thought been given to extending the areas where loitering will be deemed to constitute vagrancy in the case of individuals who have been convicted of such offences?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I must confess that it has not. We received representations from British Columbia in this particular case. The British Columbia section of the Canadian Bar Association made the suggestion. I think they were actuated in making it by several rather nasty cases that had arisen in which, as my hon. friend knows is often the case, children were the victims of these sex perverts. They thought that by keeping them away from the places indicated in this section the purpose they had in mind might be served.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The section is good as far as it goes. I think everyone will commend it. However, it is confined to cases of loitering or wandering in or near a school ground or playground. I should think there are other places which might well be included besides those two. One thinks of public parks. We had a case in Toronto not long ago where a horrible offence of this kind was committed in a park, which could not be classified, I think, as a school ground or playground. Playgrounds

have a specific connotation which would not be wide enough to include all parts of public parks.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend can see, the principle of this section is the prevention of the loitering of these individuals in any place where children congregate in numbers. If my hon. friend would care to reflect upon the matter and would like to move an amendment adding some other place in addition to school grounds and playgrounds, I would be very glad to accept it because it would introduce no change in principle at all from that which is embodied in the section as it stands. We thought this pretty well covered it. One of the things you have to keep in mind is that we do not want to make it of such general application as to make it inoperative; but if my hon. friend, after we have gone through these other sections, would like to revert to this one and move an amendment adding one or two more places where children may congregate I would be very glad to accept it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Public parks occur to me.


David Arnold Croll: There are adults in public parks whereas you do not see too many around schools. The first thing you know you will find that these people were better off in jail. I think it is a good step in the right direction, but let us not make it too confining or these people will almost be prisoners whether they are in or out. That is the difficulty as I see it. The thought is that there are children in great numbers around school grounds and playgrounds, and very few adults, but in parks you usually find older people and the difficulties do not arise in the same way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I must disagree with my hon. friend. Some of the worst cases we have had in my city have arisen in parks. I think far more of them have occurred in parks than in school grounds or playgrounds. Some playgrounds are located in public parks, but the expression "public park" would be much broader than playgrounds. My hon. friend indicates that many adults are usually to be found in the public parks. We have some pretty big public parks and the presence of adults in some of them has not prevented some of the worst of these offences being committed. In many cases playgrounds are supervised, but it is not possible to supervise all parts of the public parks. In the larger cities we have public parks that may run to several hundred acres.
Surely our first concern in a situation of this kind is not going to be the enjoyment of liberty on the part of people who have been convicted of the types of offences that
Criminal Code
are enumerated here. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here only with people who have already been convicted of these horrible offences against young girls. In a situation like this I am not going to waste very much concern on these people as to the abridgement of their right to loiter or hang around public parks. I am going to expend a good deal of concern on the young girls who may be using these parks for quite lawful purposes. I think we should be greatly concerned about protecting them from people who have been convicted of these sexual crimes against young girls. I cannot see any objection to the inclusion of public parks in the type of areas in which people convicted of these crimes are to be prevented from loitering or wandering. If they are going about their business and are not loitering or wandering they will not be committing an offence against this section, but if they are just hanging around, and, as we know from the newspapers, they hang around public parks a great deal, then they may be up to no good. I think that we ought to add public parks to the two areas in which these people are prohibited from loitering or wandering. I would urge that on the minister. It may be that on further reflection similar areas may occur to members of the house, but that is one that comes to my mind at once, and I would urge the minister to accept that addition.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should also like to suggest bathing pools and other swimming places.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: The minister mentioned the British Columbia Bar Association. Has he not also received representations from the ladies of the Lady Laurier club of Dawson Creek on this matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I did.. The formal representation came forward from the British Columbia Bar Association, but we have received other more informal representations including those from the ladies of Dawson Creek.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. Can we let it stand for a moment?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister anything to say about the suggestions that have been made? If not, I would be glad, if the clause could stand for a moment, to draft an amendment to include public parks and public bathing areas.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not be in favour of barring a person who has been convicted from a park or from sitting on a bench or

Criminal Code
from attending a refreshment bar any more than the hon. member for Spadina would. But having regard to the fact that the words used in this section are "loitering or wandering", that is off the beaten path and not where there are places to sit, and so on, I would say that if the individual is loitering or wandering out around the shrubbery and so on, that is the sort of thing we want to stop. For my part I would be quite willing to accept an amendment to that effect.


David Arnold Croll: This man may be attending a band concert and cannot find a seat, so he is walking about for the moment. He might well be charged with loitering or wandering about. It is too confining altogether. As it stands at present the section is admirable, so let us see how it works out. If in the light of events we have to enlarge it we can do so, but I agree that this is a step in the right direction and we should let it go at that for the time being.'


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am moving that clause (k) as it appears in section 13 of this bill be amended by the addition of the words "or public park or public bathing area". In reply to what has been said by the hon. member for Spadina I stress that in the first place this applies only to people who already have been convicted of some of these heinous carnal offences against youngsters. That is the first point. The second is that it applies only where they are found loitering or wandering in or near these public areas. If a man is listening to a band concert and behaves himself I do not think anyone will say he is loitering or wandering about. It seems to me a very sound idea that people with records like that who are found in these public areas loitering or wandering about should be liable to conviction on a charge of vagrancy. It is not any more serious than that, but I am sure it will give more effective opportunity to keep such people moving out of such places.


Mr. Cresiohl:: I do not think the amendment goes far enough. In the clause the words used are "school ground or playground". That indicates that these are places where children gather unattended. If the hon. member for Eglinton wishes the clause to go further he should simply say "or other places where children gather". That would not restrict us to bathing areas or public parks but would include all places where children gather. It might be a picnic ground; it might be any other place where children gather unattended. I understand the purpose of this measure is to protect children in places where they gather unattended and unsupervised.
[Mr. Garson.l


Donald Methuen Fleming: I appreciate the helpful
spirit in which the hon. member has made his suggestion. The difficulty, of course, lies in the draftsmanship. There is a danger in using language as general as the hern, member has suggested. If he would apply the section generally to places where children gather that would include the school itself; it might include a church or Sunday school and so on. The hon. member said these were places where children gather unattended, but I would suggest that children do not always go to these places unattended. School grounds are supervised at certain hours of the day. In many places public playgrounds are supervised at certain hours. I think if we add the two other places I have suggested we will be on sound ground, and we will not run into any question of the vagueness of general terms. If there are any specific suggestions the hon. member can offer I am sure we would welcome them.


Leon David Crestohl: Picnic grounds.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A picnic ground is almost certain to be in a public park, and I think that would be included under my amendment. There are some private picnic grounds, but presumably those would have some measure of supervision on the part of the owners. Here the emphasis is on public places, schools and playgrounds, and my amendment follows the general scheme of the section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-Driving while ability to drive is impaired.
John George Diefenbaker: This is the section dealing with drunken driving, and it is a most interesting experiment on the part of the department. It seems to me they are endeavouring to zone the law on drunken driving, and that by zoning the law they have actually reduced the danger to those who, being intoxicated, operate motorcars. Under the present section the minimum penalty on summary conviction is seven days and the maximum penalty is a period not exceeding thirty days. Because it is sometimes difficult to establish intoxication a junior offence has been created. This provides that everyone who, while his ability to drive a motor vehicle is impaired, drives such motor vehicle, is guilty of an offence. The penalty provided for a first offence is a fine not exceeding $500 and not less than $50 or imprisonment, or both fine and imprisonment.
I think in practice this will emasculate the drunken driving section in effect today and provide an easy escape for those who drive motor cars while intoxicated. Furthermore

Criminal Code
provision is made regarding chemical tests, urine tests, breath tests and so on; but on analysis of the section my submission is that it really amounts to very little. It provides that the result of a chemical analysis of the blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance may be admitted in evidence notwithstanding the fact that no warning was given. Then there is a further subsection stating that no person is required to give a sample of blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance for chemical analysis for the purposes of this section. In other words while it purports to extend the field within which the prosecution is able to secure evidence against an accused charged with driving while intoxicated, in fact it does not do so. All it provides is that such evidence may be admitted. Then, you come to the question whether or not it will be admitted. The giving of a warning that the accused does not have to submit is not necessary, but there are still many other reasons why the court would hold that what had been done had not been done voluntarily, and because of that the evidence would not be admissible. I think that while this section has a grandiloquent sound about it, in effect it is more show than it is actually helpful in meeting the situation.
I realize the difficulties. I did when I suggested on more than one occasion in the house that the breath test, the urine test and the blood test should be allowed. I realized that there would be an interference with the individual's rights by the taking of those tests. But drunken driving has become a serious matter menacing the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of people within our country and requires very drastic action.
Mr. Justice Barlow of the trial court of Ontario, in January last, stated that of the seven manslaughter cases at the previous assizes in Toronto, each and every one of them had originated in the beer parlour. This indicates the degree of danger for persons properly using the highways, when they are brought in contact with those who operate cars when intoxicated. I am not going into the experience in other nations except by way of a quick reference. In Norway the provision is made that all drivers who have a blood alcohol concentration of -05 or over are considered guilty of an offence. There is a medical examination as well as an examination of the blood. In Sweden they have a combination of medical examination and chemical tests. There all those who have [DOT] 08 of alcohol in their blood are included, and those who have between -08 and -15, depending on the outcome of the clinical examination, are found either guilty or not
guilty. When it is found that the concentration of alcohol is over -15 per cent the person is guilty, regardless of the outcome of any chemical examination.
Recently the provincial directors of the Accident Prevention Association of Ontario met in conference in the city of Toronto. They dealt at length with the situation. They had authoritative speakers present on that occasion. Tests were made in Toronto in accidents involving personal injuries that had taken place over a period of time. It was found that in all the accidents that had taken place in Toronto that were investigated, twenty-three per cent of the drivers had more than a trace of alcohol in their blood. It further showed that the proportion of drivers that make errors in driving increase with the increasing concentration of alcohol from -05 to -14. It was also found that eighty-six per cent of all drivers having -15 per cent of alcohol in their blood had committed acts of driving negligence of one kind or another, which indicates that a percentage of -15 is a dangerous percentage for at least eighty-six per cent of all drivers operating motor cars. At this meeting at which there were toxicology representatives, and also enforcement officers, the final conclusion was that there was a definite relationship between the concentration of alcohol in the blood and driving errors resulting in accidents.
My submission is that this section, when read cursorily, indicates a serious endeavour is being made to provide for blood, urine and breath tests, whereas in fact the question is begged and not faced. I believe that the zoning of the law and the provision that is made now in the new subsection 4a, to which I have made reference, will have the result of increasing the number of convictions to no great extent, but will in fact be an invitation to drunken drivers and will result in a fine being imposed for the first offence rather than a prison sentence. While some may say that the possibility of seven days in jail is not a deterrent to those who would drive motorcars when in an advanced state of intoxication, nonetheless I think experience has shown-I am referring now to the evidence of police officers-that the fear of a minimum period of imprisonment has a deterrent effect. In fact, I believe the predecessor to the Minister of Justice stated on one occasion that an increase in the penalty providing for a greater minimum period of imprisonment would result in a greater degree of fear on the part of potential wrongdoers.
I am one of those who have always taken a strong stand on behalf of the liberty of the subject, and against any unnecessary invasion of his constitutional rights. But having regard

Criminal Code
to the mounting death rate in this country as a result of the driving of motor cars by intoxicated drivers, there is only one language that such potential wrongdoers understand and that is the stern enforcement of the law. Instead of revising the penalty to a mere fine with a minimum of $50, I would have thought there would have been an increase in the minimum period of imprisonment which now stands at seven days. Many may think that this new subsection 4d provides blood, urine, breath or other bodily tests, but it does not. It permits the court to admit such tests, but there is nothing to prevent the court from holding, whether or not a warning was given, that such an interference with the person of the alleged wrongdoer constitutes an invasion of his rights, and as such is inadmissible. Indeed, the wording of the section would seem to be an invitation to the court to hold that, except in unusual circumstances, such tests should not be admissible. I am going to say no more at this time but I feel that this section which, before it finally came before the house in its present form, had been proclaimed as a great forward step is in fact one that will do little or nothing to meet the increasing menace of homicide by drunken drivers whose regard for the rights of others diminishes in almost direct proportion to the degree to which they have imbibed intoxicating liquor. I should like to know who recommended the section in its present form, for it certainly does not go as far as the law enforcement officers would like it to go. Indeed, it constitutes but a mere faltering step forward in an aggressive campaign to protect the lives of our citizens from those who, by reason of their intoxication, care nothing for the rights of others.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, I rather feel
that, in joining in this debate, following the hon. member for Lake Centre, I am taking a great deal on my shoulders. I might say to the much more learned hon. member that I do think twice about doing so. Certainly if I object to any of the remarks he has made, he will recognize the fact that it is purely junior counsel doing so. I feel, however, that this section which is proposed to be put into the code is a good one, as far as I see it. From practice as I myself know it, I think it would be a much greater deterrent to driving while drunk than is the present section in the code. I feel that if magistrates have this section to use they will be much more inclined to convict than they will be if they are obliged to operate under the present section. I say that with all due respect to my hon. and learned friend who has had infinitely more experience in larger spheres 
than I have. But I myself feel that this is a good section, and I would want it to stay there.
I agree with him-and I am not quite certain that he spoke altogether as I feel about the other important section having to do with the invasion of the rights of the subject, in connection with this question of the testing of the various processes of the human body. I feel strongly about that matter, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect to those who drafted this section, I feel that a warning should be given by the arresting constable, or whoever does the arresting, before such a test is made. I do not think it is right or proper that these tests should be merely taken as a matter of course without the arrested person being properly warned that he need not be subject to a test if he does not wish to have it.
From the little knowledge that I have of these things, I see how a grave injustice could be done. Certainly it is contrary to the principles of British justice as I know it. As I say, if my hon. and learned friend had spoken in a contrary fashion-and I am not quite certain whether he has or has not-I agree with him. If he has not, I disagree with him. I think that provision should be included. I think a warning should be given before any man has to undergo a test of any of these types that are set forth in this act.


Mr. Adamson:: I just want to bring one
situation to the minister's attention. While I am in general agreement with this section, it seems to me that the mandatory imprisonment for drunken driving-particularly drunken driving which has resulted in an accident-should be clearly stated in the Criminal Code. I mention this point in view of an accident that happened here in Ottawa only a few days ago, where a driver had not only one accident but two, and where he nearly killed one of the surveyors working for either the city of Ottawa or the parks commission, as I gather. He left the scene of the accident, leaving the surveyor or the engineer prone on the ground, having destroyed his transit, changed cars, got into a taxi and when he was picked up

through what must be considered to be a bright piece of work on the part of a policeman-was found to be in an advanced stage of intoxication. The driver was fined $500. That man might easily have killed somebody. In fact, he seriously injured a surveyor. Had he gone up and hit him on the head with a hammer or, in other words, assaulted him, he would certainly have been imprisoned for bodily assault. But because he hit somebody with a motorcar, he is fined $500.

Criminal Code
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it is just as dangerous and just as bad for a driver, when drunk, to drive a motorcar over a man as it is to go up and assault him on the street. It seems to me that the section should have a clause providing for mandatory imprisonment for this sort of accident.
In my opinion the thing which causes as much in the way of accidents as I have seen is the insulting behaviour of motorists to each other, the insulting behaviour of motorists to pedestrians and vice versa. I do not suppose it could be possible that some clause could be put in the code with regard to insulting language used by motorists to each other. Nothing is so likely to adversely affect the driving ability of a motorist who is in charge of a heavy and powerful machine which is capable of causing death in a split second as the impairment of his judgment; and there is nothing that is more likely to impair a driver's judgment than anger. I do not suppose it would be possible to have such a clause in the section. There is the old saying about care and courtesy. It is a question of courtesy in driving, something which is of inestimable importance to safety and security on our roads.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to say a few words in explanation of the government's position in this matter, my doubts as to whether or not I should do so having been set at rest by getting a note from one of my colleagues who indicated that his constituents would like to have something on record-and I am sure this may be true of others-as to the basis upon which the government has proceeded in this legislation. This matter came up last year, and at that time, if my memory serves me correctly- and Hansard seems to indicate that it does- the hon. member for Lake Centre was strongly in favour of some of the types of chemical tests that had been employed in American jurisdictions, Michigan in particular, as having very greatly improved the law enforcement there.
Improvement in law enforcement depends to some extent upon the condition of law enforcement at the time the improvement began; and it may be that conclusions based upon the improvements which took place in Michigan would not be tenable as applied to the law enforcement in the Canadian provinces.
I might add, by way of compliment, if I may put it that way, in respect of the hon. member's remarks of last year, that the government took his views seriously, and that since that time we have had one of the abler
members of our staff go into the matter carefully. He went to Detroit and examined the improvements they had made there. He went to Chicago and to Northwestern University at Evanston. Then he came back and found, according to a report he made to us, that the best work of all in his opinion was that being carried on by the department of pharmacology of the university of Toronto. Portions of my remarks tonight are based in large measure upon a report which Dr. H. W. Smith of the department of pharmacology prepared at our request on this subject. We, in turn, have given support to some important research into the problem at the university of Toronto, by means of a grant from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
As a result of these surveys we have conducted we feel we have obtained all the information available in Canada which is likely to have a bearing upon the problem, and it is on the basis of this information which we have secured that the present proposals now before hon. members are made.
What is the main purpose of legislation directed against driving after drinking? Surely it is to eliminate drinking as a cause of motor accidents and motor deaths. For example, this mandatory punishment of seven days in jail, in addition to the impoundment of the car for some months, which is visited upon an otherwise respectable citizen who has been guilty of driving while drunk, is infinitely more severe than any punishment that the law imposes upon him for merely being drunk. And the reason why that serious punishment is inflicted upon him, the reason for the extra heavy penalty, is to prevent the accidents and deaths which are caused by drunken driving.
The next important question is, I think: When does the consumption of alcohol affect a driver so that he is more likely to have an accident than if he had not been drinking? The answer to this question we have received, from inquiries we have made of these scientific gentlemen, is that a driver is dangerous, not merely when he is completely drunk. Indeed, if he is sufficiently drunk his danger to traffic has disappeared, because he cannot drive his car at all.
It is now scientifically established that alcohol will impair the efficiency of a driver so that he does not drive at all with his normal ability, even though the degree to which he is under the influence of liquor may fall short of complete intoxication.
In other words scientists say that, short of intoxication, alcohol has two nutjor effects

Criminal Code
which lead to accidents. The first is what they call euphoria, or a sense of false confidence, amounting in some cases almost to irresponsibility. The second is a physical effect by way of a slowing up of the reflexes or the reaction time of the driver. Short of complete intoxication, alcohol will bring about a serious impairment in the ability of the driver, as a result of these two influences.
The hon. member has asked who recommended this. Well, what we have produced is the result of the deliberations of the cabinet itself. But in those deliberations we did have the views of these scientific men. And in their view an important objective of legislation against driving after drinking would be to prohibit driving, not only when the driver is completely intoxicated, but when his ability to drive has been seriously impaired by the consumption of alcohol. And I imagine the case cited tonight by the hon. member for York West of, as he said, an assault by automobile was probably the result of the actions of a man whose ability to drive had been impaired by the consumption of alcohol.
It is to take care of that kind of driving that this new section has been inserted in the Criminal Code. And, if this is any reassurance to the hon. member for Lake Centre, it has the endorsement of those who have studied this matter from a scientific standpoint. Also if I understood the hon. member for Lake Centre correctly-and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong-I gathered from his remarks last year that in his opinion one of the reasons why there were not more convictions for drunken driving in Canada, in proportion to the amount of drunken driving which he said was taking place in this country, was that because of the mandatory jail sentence the police, the prosecutors and, in particular, the magistrates hesitated to prosecute and convict an accused person because they knew he would have to go to jail if such a finding was made. For a man who was otherwise respectable this was a very great odium. Because of that what happened was-and my hon. friend told us this repeatedly; I am sure he will recollect it -that they laid charges of reckless driving, and not drunken driving at all.
He brought forward that argument in opposition to my contention that the law as it stood at that time, and as it stands now, before this new amendment comes into effect, was quite capable of enforcement if the authorities would just get busy and enforce it. We thought that in providing a new offence of driving while one's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or drugs, we were not only creating what perhaps should have been an offence before-because it is the 
driving of that sort of persons which has injured many innocent people in this country -but we were also providing, for that group of reckless driving cases to which my hon. friend referred, a means whereby these gentlemen whose drinking had resulted in something less than intoxication, could be brought to justice without having to use the device of charging reckless driving.
While it is quite true that for the first offence under this new section the penalty is a fine of $50, for the second offence under this section there is a mandatory provision for imprisonment, just as under .the drunken driving provision.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister the number of prosecutions in Canada last year for drunken drivings and the number of convictions?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I have not but I could supply my hon. friend with that information.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that would tell the story.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My impression is quite distinct that we went into that aspect of the matter last year. I will confess that in some provincial jurisdictions as distinguished from others there was a larger number of charges of reckless driving and a fewer number of charges of drunken driving. But that was not uniform. In some jurisdictions where they had made up their minds to stamp out drunken driving there was a proportionately larger number of charges of drunken driving laid and, what is more significant, a large number of convictions. This shows that it is possible to secure convictions on these charges.


Agar Rodney Adamson: You really need an aroused public opinion.
Mr. Garson,: Quite so. My hon. friend is entirely right. In every one of these jurisdictions where the authorities were doing a good job of prosecuting to conviction drunken drivers there had been a condition precedent of an aroused public opinion that put the authorities right on the spot. They had no other choice but to go ahead with a policy of strict law enforcement.
We must remember that we are making laws for the whole of Canada. In order to preserve it for those provinces in which there was adequate enforcement under the law as it stands at the present time and with existing methods of proof we retained upon the statute books the existing charge of drunken driving. We do not put the authorities, in rural areas for instance where they could not provide chemical tests-we do not confront them with the necessity of having in all cases

to provide chemical tests. They can proceed in the same way they are doing now to secure a conviction on the charge of drunken driving without any change from the practice they have been following up to the present time.
But in those other places where the local authorities claim, rightly or wrongly, that they find it impossible to do what is being done in some provinces, that they are embarrassed because of this mandatory jail sentence and cannot get convictions, we have provided this other offence of driving while one's ability to drive is impaired. This offence not only stands up on its own merits but also provides the authorities in those areas, mostly metropolitan areas, who claim they have difficulty enforcing the present law, with a means whereby they can bear down upon those who are driving motor cars through our streets after they have been indulging too heavily in the cup that cheers.
I may say a word with regard to chemical tests-I hope my hon. friend from Lake Centre will correct me if I am wrong, and I shall be glad to read back to him from Hansard what he said although I do not think that is necessary-I got the impression that the kind of chemical test he would favour was the one in which the crown or the state, as it would be in the United States, or along the lines that he quoted in Norway and Sweden, would come in with evidence to indicate that a man's blood test or breath test or saliva test or urine test showed a certain percentage of alcohol; and that by that one fact that the accused had a certain percentage of alcohol in his bodily substance, a statutory presumption would be raised against him which he would have to rebut. In other words, instead of the prosecution having to prove that he was guilty, instead of his being innocent until he was proven guilty, by the operation of that particular kind of chemical test the position would be reversed, and the onus would then shift to the accused of proving that he was innocent.


John George Diefenbaker: I disabuse my hon. friend immediately in that connection. I said that chemical tests, along with the clinical evidence of a doctor, should be necessary in order to establish intoxication. Nowhere did I suggest that the onus pass to the accused, indirectly or at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am delighted f to hear what my hon. friend has said because the remarks that he has just finished making are an endorsement of the government's policy.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What we have provided in this bill is, first, no more than a statutory enactment which will make applicable to all 80709-297
Criminal Code
provinces in Canada the effect of the Ontario court of appeal decision which was that if a chemical test of alcohol concentration in the blood is taken without warning it is admissible in evidence. Thus we say in our legislation here that evidence as to the alcoholic content of the accused's blood is admissible for whatever probative value it may have in the opinion of the court, and that no special significance attaches to any particular alcoholic concentration in the blood but that that must be considered by the court along with all other clinical evidence in deciding whether the accused was driving a car while his ability to drive was impaired, or while he was intoxicated.
There are a number of reasons for this legislation taking the form it has. Some of them are in favour of the crown and the others are in favour of the accused. One of the results which flow from what took place in some of these United States jurisdictions which my hon. friend seems to admire so much is this: When you bring evidence into court that a man has, we will say, [DOT] 15 per cent alcoholic content in his blood, and when you provide by statute that upon proof of that fact-this appears to be the case in some Scandinavian countries-a man shall be convicted, he is in effect being convicted out of a test tube. If he has that percentage of alcohol concentration he is guilty of the offence.
That also means that the man who has just less than that is proved to be sober, is proved to be innocent. You cannot create a standard of drunkenness or impairment without automatically creating a standard of nonintoxication or non-impairment just under the other. And the line that separates guilt from innocence on this basis is perhaps two ten-thousandths or -02 per cent. All the scientists seem to agree that impairment starts at around -05 per cent, which is not quite one two-thousandth part in volume.


John George Diefenbaker: Does my hon. friend include Dr. H. Ward Smith in that statement he quoted a moment ago?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will send that across to my hon. friend after I have finished.


John George Diefenbaker: I have it right here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend will be able to see his views on that very point. Impairment commences at a blood concentration of -05 per cent in persons who are very sensitive to alcohol, and then in the case of persons who are resistant there will be a spread from this -05 per centum or -08 per cent up to this point of -13 per cent. That means that while science can determine what percentage of alcohol in the blood will cause impairment

Criminal Code
in a sensitive person and what will cause impairment in a very resistant person, it cannot be said with regard to John Doe, who is somewhere in between, whether he is or is not impaired on the basis of the blood test alone. If the hon. member for Lake Centre will examine all of Dr. Ward Smith's material he will see that in a very elaborate series of studies involving some 16,000 subjects conducted in Europe, some scientists who conducted them were of the view that a blood concentration of [DOT] 15 per cent indicated intoxication; others that -45 per cent, three times as great, constituted intoxication; and still others at varying percentages between these extremes.
What is the explanation of this variation? The explanation of the variation arises from the definition of intoxication. The scientists who claimed that -45 per cent was required to establish intoxication adopted a series of symptoms, gross staggering, flushed face, lack of co-ordination, in other words, a very advanced state of intoxication. The scientists who claimed that -15 per cent would produce intoxication adopted as their standard of intoxication merely that the subject drove a car more recklessly than ninety per cent of a normal group of drivers. One can see from that that the figure of [DOT] 45 proceeded from a set of premises. Once it was assumed that intoxication meant gross, serious intoxication, then it followed inevitably from that that a high blood alcohol concentration was required to produce that intoxication. Once you adopted a low degree of intoxication as indicating drunkenness, then a low alcoholic concentration would produce that drunkenness.
In other words, the scientists in reaching their conclusions as to the blood concentration which was required to establish intoxication were using for the standard upon which their logic was based the same kind of clinical symptoms that the village constable would use in proving a case of drunkenness before the village magistrate, that the person staggered, that his face was flushed, that his speech was slurred, that he had lost co-ordination, and so on, and one result flowed from the other. This scientific evidence has no magic to it. It should go into the case and be considered-and in this I am happy to note that the hon. member for Lake Centre agrees with our viewpoint-as one of the facts to be taken into consideration along with all other facts in arriving at the decision as to whether or not in that case the accused was drunk, or whether or not his ability to drive was impaired. But even on that basis it is of very great value because it will negative those cases in which the accused says that he took too many aspirins, that he was shocked by the [Mr. Garsor '
accident or was upset because he had run over some person, and that he was not intoxicated at all, that he was not impaired at all, that it was just these circumstances and not his consumption of alcohol, perish the thought, which had confounded him. The blood test likewise will indicate if the alcohol concentration is low that it may be because the man is ill, or is tired, or his stomach is empty, that he is in trouble, and then it will operate in his defence.
What we have done is that we have tried to retain all the workable and good features of the law as it stands at the present time. We have tried to add to the offences a new one of driving while one's ability to drive is impaired, which is quite sound on its own basis, and which, judging by the representations we have received from the police forces and others in the larger centres, will enable them to deal with a whole multitude of cases which they say they cannot deal with now.
We have provided for chemical tests. They are not compulsory. They do not set up any presumption against the accused. We are still a British country and a man is still innocent until he is proven guilty. The burden is still on the crown of proving him guilty from start to finish. The result of all this is that we think we have retained all the existing benefits and added to them what we hope will prove to be fairly pronounced improvements.


Mr. Carroll:: I think if there is any virtue
in this measure-and I have no doubt there is-it lies in something that has been going on in this country for some years, preventive medicine. I think that is the real virtue in this amendment to the Criminal Code. If a person is found under these conditions and convicted the fine may be only $50 for the first offence, but if he is convicted a second time it means three months' imprisonment, and I would think that would be a fair warning. I do not know whether this provision will add very much. Usually the matter of drunkenness is taken into consideration when a person is charged with reckless driving, outside of a charge of drunken driving, and so far as I know it has always been the law in my province that a judge is entitled to tell a jury that if a man is less capable of driving his car on account of taking liquor than he would be if he had taken no liquor at all that indicates negligence, and gross negligence at that.
Of course this goes a step further. A man may be convicted of this offence for his inability to drive because of taking too much liquor, if liquor has that effect on him, but I think the crown is going to have tremendous difficulty in proving these cases at

all. I think the only way you can prove that a man is less capable of driving on account of liquor than he would be if he had none at all is by his actions. When it comes to the tests that are made, liquor has a different effect on thousands of people. That was brought out in the remarks of the Minister of Justice. For example, everybody that has had anything to do with these matters knows that there are some people who can take six good glasses of whisky and it has no more effect on them than if they had taken two glasses of water. You have got to go into all that. You have to go into the psychology of the individual, the effect liquor may have on him and all that kind of thing; and I am afraid the amendment is not going to do too much good except, as I say, by way of prevention. Personally I would rather have seen this amendment deferred until Mr. Justice Martin of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, who has had a tremendous amount of experience in this matter, brought down the results of his investigation.
Suppose a man has a blood test. Who is going to prove what effect the liquor he has taken has had upon his ability to drive? Toronto university has carried out some investigations into this matter. Well, unless they get a doctor who agrees with the results of those investigations, they will have to take the men who carried out the investigations to various parts of the country, because there are as many opinions in the medical profession as to the effects of alcohol as there are on other questions of this kind. I think the trouble will be in the proof. Drunken driving cases never came before the court over which I had the honour to preside for some years, but in any case where the evidence would make an ordinary person feel that a man was drunk and practically incapable of driving a car I believe the magistrates of our province have carried out their duty and responsibility. Personally I think that as far as manslaughter is concerned it was a mistake to give the court power to tell the jury that if they did not find the accused guilty of manslaughter they could find him guilty of reckless driving. The very basis of manslaughter is reckless driving. If a man is driving recklessly and the car over which he has control kills someone, that is absolute proof of manslaughter. I understand that change was put through for certain reasons which came from the province of Ontario. I have tried a good many cases of manslaughter, and I can remember only one in which the accused was not found guilty when there was evidence that he was driving recklessly. Sometimes the trouble with our courts is that the juries are not told what
80709-297J
Criminal Code
recklessness means. If I am driving a car slowly but looking up at the tall buildings or something of the kind I am just as reckless as though I were driving a hundred miles an hour.
I am getting away from the subject under discussion. I believe the virtue of this amendment will be in prevention. Once you get a conviction under this new section I believe it will help prevent this sort of thing, but I do not see how you are going to get a conviction on scientific evidence alone. I feel quite sure it will be practically an impossibility. It is easy enough to have a man found guilty of drunken driving with the aid of scientific evidence, but I think you will find tremendous difficulties in connection with this new provision.
There is just one other point on which I want to say a word. The section includes the words "or has the care or control of a motor vehicle or automobile, whether it is in motion or not". The only way to prove whether a man is up to snuff, as the saying goes, is the way he drives. How are you going to prove that his ability to drive is below par because of liquor if he is just sitting in the car at the side of the road? I do not see how that is going to help in the matter of proof.


Solon Earl Low: I find myself very much in sympathy with what has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and thinking very much along the lines of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. I do not see how you are ever going to get sufficient evidence to prove your case under the new section. As has been pointed out already, liquor evidently has as many different effects upon human beings as there are human beings, and I doubt that any scientist could possibly determine the effect upon the ability of a given man to drive. However, that is not the point I rose to discuss. I am just a bit puzzled about the relationship between the two subsections, 4 and 4a. First I would like to know undier which of these subsections a charge would be laid. From some speakers I have understood that the new subsection is supposed to be not only a new classification but also something of a lesser infraction of the law. Would the minister say just how a peace officer would proceed to lay a charge and under which subsection a charge would be laid, because both will be in the act? Following that I would like to ask how the penalty range for a first offence was arrived at. In subsection 4 as it now stands the penalty is imprisonment for from thirty days to three months. Under the new subsection the penalty range is a fine of from $50 to $500 or a jail term of up to three months, or both.

Criminal Code
In case a judge decided to impose both fine and imprisonment the maximum could be a fine of $500 and imprisonment for three months. That does not suggest a lesser infraction of the law by any means. So I would like to know how the penalty range was arrived at in the two subsections.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if this is not what would happen. A policeman brings in a man he has found in charge of a motor vehicle and in a condition of insobriety. The constable will recount what the scientists call his clinical symptoms, that is his conduct; whether he speaks in a slurring way, whether he staggers, and what other indications of insobriety he may show. Under the law as it now stands, without any chemical tests at all, the gentleman who is in charge of the booking-I have not had enough experience to know the proper term for the man who is in charge of the police station- will decide, from what evidence he can get, whether he thinks they can make a charge of drunken driving stick against this accused. If they think they can do so they will lay this charge. When the case comes up in court, the crown witnesses, the policeman who took him in charge and any crown witnesses they have who saw the occurrence -perhaps he collided with a lamp post or maybe he drove through a traffic signal- will state the facts that have a bearing on the case. The court will hear what they have to say, and hear any defence that the accused puts in, then decide whether it thinks he was intoxicated while in charge of that motorcar.
When this bill is passed, in addition to the other evidence, they may have a chemical test showing he had an alcohol concentration in his blood of say -18 per cent. That would be evidence corroborating the clinical symptoms to which the policeman testified, and make rather convincing corroborative evidence. This would be a case of drunken driving.
But suppose the man were not completely intoxicated. He has been involved in an accident, his breath smells of liquor but he can walk fairly straight. He appears to be somewhat under the influence of liquor. Then, if they have a test and it indicates his blood concentration is not -18 per cent but only [DOT]08 per cent they would upon the prosecution of the accused place all the facts before the court and it would be for the court to decide whether that man's ability to drive was impaired by his consumption of alcohol. The chemical test would show the reason for the impairment. There it is. There is an indication of what he had in his blood. The fact

that he ran into this other car under circumstances which indicated it was his fault indicates some impairment of his driving ability. From these facts that are submitted to the court, the court has to decide whether it regards his ability to drive as having been impaired on that occasion. If it is felt that the case has not been established there is an acquittal. If it is felt that the case has been established there is a conviction. I think it is just as simple as that. If the accused does not think that is fair, he can take an appeal to a higher court. I think perhaps from unfamiliarity with the new offence, and also perhaps because impairment is a less definite condition than drunkenness, it may be more difficult, but it will work itself out.


Solon Earl Low: I accept that. I think the explanation would indicate that the court would decide under which of the clauses they would have a better chance of conviction. That being the case, I am just a little puzzled as to why the maximum penalties are so different in these two cases.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend in reading the code description of the penalties for the offence of drunken driving has not just read the penalty which attaches to trial by indictment for drunken driving, which course would only be followed in a case of unusual seriousness. The great majority of trials for drunken driving, as my hon. friend well knows, are by way of summary conviction where the mandatory minimum penalty is just seven days. When you compare the seven days with the other, then the disparity is not as great as my hon. friend has indicated.


Solon Earl Low: Let me assure the Minister of Justice, and the member for Lake Centre, that I certainly sympathize with every effort that has been made to reduce the accidents and the terrible things that do happen as a result of people trying to drive a motorcar while they are under the influence of liquor. Every effort ought to be made to do away with it entirely. I am not so sure but that eventually we shall have to come to the point where anyone who has been using liquor, and who is in charge of a motorcar, will simply have to forfeit his right to drive.


Mr. Fulford:: I am rather disappointed that there has not been incorporated in these amendments some arrangement to require chronic alcoholics to go to a hospital and take treatment for chronic alcoholism. The province of Ontario has made progressive studies in this regard recently, I believe, based on research by Yale university. Whereas formerly alcoholism was considered a disgrace, I believe that today it is generally recognized

as a disease that can be, if not cured, at least checked. I should like to recommend to the Minister of Justice that some time amendments be incorporated making it compulsory, say on the fourth conviction for drunken driving, that the accused be hospitalized and the cure for alcoholism taken.
You would not be taking away the rights of the citizen. We have compulsory hospitalization for tuberculosis. A man is taken out of society if he is a carrier of disease. Certainly the drunken driver is far more dangerous when seated at the wheel of a car than the carrier of a contagious disease, such as measles or diphtheria. We have antidotes for those, but we have no antidotes for the drunken driver. I think it is worth serious consideration. If you sentence a man to jail time and time again for drunken driving or common drunkenness, his first reaction when he gets out is to get drunk again. We have all seen that happen time and time again. You can take a man's driving licence away from him, but you cannot keep him from driving a car if he is a certain type of drunkard. He will get behind the wheel of a car, and then he is a maniac who is a potential murderer.
The province has been getting large profits out of the liquor business, so I would recommend that the province establish units to which a chronic alcoholic could go for treatment in order to be reclaimed as a useful citizen, instead of being thrown into jail and treated as a common jailbird. Such treatment is not doing him one bit of good, and still leaves him a potential maniac on the highways.


Mr. Stewart (Yorklon):: I see that according to subclause 4e-I do not want to hold this up-no person is required to give a sample of blood. Under subsection 4d such a sample can be produced in evidence. Presuming a man is so intoxicated he cannot give his consent, the sample of blood may be taken anyway and used in evidence?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes.


Alan Carl Stewart: I am surprised that the member for Lake Centre, who is so concerned about the liberty of the subject, has not raised that point. You are probably familiar with Taylor on medical jurisprudence, wherein it states that in the taking of a sample no alcohol rub should be used before the needle is inserted. In one case I had, one doctor swore that nothing was done, that no alcohol was rubbed on. The other swore there was. Then another one gave different evidence. If the doctors are going to conduct these tests, I think that point is
Criminal Code
also material, namely that they are not supposed to rub any alcohol on the arm before they take the test, as it affects the test.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the reason why we made such evidence admissible for whatever probative value it might have. Those who testify are subject to cross-examination so that the whole process can be checked, in fairness to the accused.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The minister still justifies taking a statement with a caution. How does he get away with not giving a caution to a man when taking something that is as important as a statement? It is definitely an infringement of the liberty of the subject.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It was not so held by the Ontario court of appeal in the case to which I referred just a few moments ago. They said that the analogy that was attempted to be drawn between a confession on the one hand and the taking of this sample on the other was not well drawn. Of course, one of the practical difficulties is that in quite a number of cases the accused is not in a position to register either objection or assent. If you require consent, you would not get the sample at all in such cases.


Alan Carl Stewart: In any event, the accused would have a fairly good damage action or suit if he did,


Gordon Francis Higgins: No, he would not have any damage action. The policeman could come along and jab him with a needle; and this authorizes him to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
minister whether any of the attorneys general of the provinces objected to blood or other chemical tests being taken. Last year when I raised this matter the minister brushed it all aside, saying that tests were not necessary. Now he admits that on reflection-to use his own term-he has found that, as a result of study and examination, some of the suggestions made have some merit. Last year he stated that he was communicating with the various attorneys general of the provinces with a view to ascertaining their attitude. I should like to secure the information from him as to what was the answer of these gentlemen with whom he communicated.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The following is the answer to my hon. friend's proposal. The proposal was approved in principle by British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland. No reply was received from Manitoba or Quebec. Saskatchewan said the draft was too technical and did not treat drunken driving as an ordinary offence or establish anything more to the

Criminal Code
advantage of the crown than exists at the present time. Nova Scotia said it would be difficult in most cases to have chemical analyses made and difficult to establish the results of an analysis. New Brunswick declined to express an opinion because it thought the problem was sufficiently complex that it should be studied at a roundtable discussion by representatives of the provinces responsible for the enforcement of the code.


John George Diefenbaker: I should also like to secure from the minister the record-and he has the record-of the number of cases during the last year, by provinces, of charges for drunken driving and the number of acquittals or convictions, as the case may be; and second, the number of reckless driving cases in each of the provinces and the outcome thereof.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


John George Diefenbaker: No; I want to secure that information from the minister. He has that information available.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will provide it for my hon. friend tomorrow. We do not have it with us at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Before third reading, will the minister give that information?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely. I shall be glad to. Section agreed to.
Sections 15 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section 18-Acts prejudicial to national security.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Section 18 introduces another new section which sets out a list of prohibited acts. A casual reading of this section leads to the view that it certainly is rather wide. For example, a prohibited act means any act or omission that
(a) impairs the efficiency or impedes the working of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, machinery, apparatus or other thing;
For example, would a legal strike, a strike that would be in order under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, be capable of being interpreted as an act that might impede the efficiency of certain machinery or apparatus and therefore be illegal under this section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is not the test of the point which my hon. friend raises as to whether the prohibited act is done for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of Canada or the safety or security of the naval, army or air forces of any state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada? In other words, the same attribute of wilfulness has to be proven in this case as in the [Mr. Garson. 1
other section about which my hon. friend was inquiring earlier. The purpose of the prohibited act must be to prejudice the safety or interests of Canada. If it is not done for that purpose, then, although perhaps that effect might ensue, the act would not be an offence under this clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In a section like this is it not possible for lawyers to use the same kind of language as is used in the explanatory note? When one reads the explanatory note, one finds that the purpose is to provide a penalty for acts of sabotage. We understand what that means; but the word "sabotage" itself does not appear in the section. Is there any reason why a word like that, the plain meaning of which is so clear, could not have been used in the section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think that the plain meaning of the word "sabotage" is so clear as my hon. friend would have us believe. The word "sabotage" is a word which is popularly and loosely used to include a number of things. If my hon. friend is concerned with the position of the subject, it seems to me that his position is much better by referring to a prohibited act and then defining that act as it is defined in this section. Subsection 2 reads:
In this section "prohibited act" means any act or omission that (a) impairs the efficiency or impedes the working of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, machinery, apparatus or other thing;
And so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will not pursue the matter, but it strikes me as a fairly wide provision. I also note that the imprisonment for this offence is a set term of ten years which I believe is as lengthy a term as that in connection with any offence which we have discussed tonight.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the maximum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that is the maximum penalty. In most cases where it is the maximum, the section usually says that. This section just says "liable to imprisonment for ten years".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He is liable to imprisonment for ten years but he is not liable for any more than that. He can be given anything less than that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
On section 21-Warrant to observe operation of telephone equipment.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that introduces into our law a form of wire tapping. This section, the minister stated

this afternoon, had been requested by the attorney general of one of the provinces, or by the department of the attorney general, and this is the type of thing to which I believe the house should take most strenuous objection.
Some weeks ago in the course of a general discussion in the house I stated I was unalterably opposed to the principle of wire tapping. This section introduces a type of wire tapping, while the tapping does not actually permit of information being secured-or, in fact, denies it.
This section is one of those things that border on the sort of thing one expects in a police state, and must be guarded against. I had occasion today to look up the discussion in the United States which took place some years ago during the days of war, in reference to the whole problem of wire tapping. President Roosevelt summed up the situation when he said that the great problem today is to balance the need for law enforcement with the need for the protection of citizens against the abuse of such powers.
I do not think it has been before our supreme court; but the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken about wire tapping in language that could be understood. Now, I think certain questions arise. One of them is this: Have betting houses and common gambling houses become so widespread that they are undermining this nation? Certainly there is no evidence of it; and I cannot believe that conditions such as were revealed by the Kefauver commission are in existence in this country. In the United States it was shown that the law authorities and the underworld were operating together in various cities in connection with gambling and gaming houses, and common betting houses, to the detriment of democracy.
Even if you answer that question in the affirmative, it does not settle the matter; because liberty is never more in danger than it is when those who are well meaning, but who have no appreciation of what liberty means, by insidious means introduce things which though innocent in themselves ultimately bring about those things that characterize the police state.
This section looks innocent. It merely allows police officers to sit in and watch telephone calls in order to ascertain the degree to which the telephone is being used. But if we begin to allow police officers to do this, we take the first step along the lines toward the most intolerable abuses that can possibly be imagined, namely interference with the
Criminal Code
privacy of individuals by the totally inexcusable method of wire tapping, and by kindred means.
It is all very well to say that under this section wire tapping in itself is not going to be allowed. If we permit this to pass, it will constitute a precedent, and it will not be a long step, once this precedent has been established, for the state to ask for the legalization of the right to snoop into the private business and affairs of any individual in this country.
I know of nothing that arouses my personal antagonism more than the step being asked for by parliament, as provided for in this section. It looks innocent; but it is a step that can only lead to the desire of law officers to go the whole way and deny freedom of communication and the right of privacy.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


George Alexander Drew: No. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be advisable to call it eleven o'clock now. If not I shall proceed for a few moments and then continue my remarks tomorrow, whichever the house prefers.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Earlier in the day it
was understood that we would have third reading of Bill No. 400, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act. If there is no objection, the Minister of Justice would move that third reading.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of Bill No. 400, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will
take up Bill No. 403, the dairy products act; the resolution to amend the Judges Act; Bill No. 391 to amend the Criminal Code; and some time during the day we will move to go into supply and call the last department, which is legislation. If we take up the estimates during the day we will consider the estimates of the Department of Transport and of the Department of National Defence.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think that the
calling of the last department should be withheld. After all, there are a number of departments to be called that are already

Business of the House before the house, and there are obvious reasons why it is desirable that one department, which only has a comparatively few items, and can be dealt with in a short time, should be held back.


Alphonse Fournier: The explanation is
the following: We have three days to move to go into supply and to call departments that have not been called. They are Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
This is the last department. If we move to go into supply we intend to call that department of legislation. Even if we go into supply on Wednesday we still would have to make a formal motion, and grievances could be brought up. I do not see that there is much difference.
Then on Thursday, Friday and Saturday we do not need a formal motion.


George Alexander Drew: I think it would be an advantage if it is deferred at least until Wednesday.


Alphonse Fournier: Will the hon. member undertake that if we do go into supply and do not call this department there will not be any debate?


George Alexander Drew: No.


Alphonse Fournier: All right; we call the department.


George Alexander Drew: But I would point out that if the government leader in the house is anxious to expedite business he might well reconsider

the advisability of calling this remaining department, because I should think it should be fairly obvious to him that he might delay the consideration of other matters now before the house which perhaps could be dealt with in an orderly procedure tomorrow.


Alphonse Fournier: My hon. friend knows that I always co-operate. We will call that department because if there is going to be a debate on going into supply I cannot see the usefulness of saying that we will not call it. If I had the assurance of the hon. gentleman that we would go into supply at a certain time during the day and take up transport or national defence I would be ready to forgo that and call this department on Wednesday; but if there is to be a debate one way or the other I am not losing anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the interest of the government and the house in expediting the business of the session would it not be a good idea to let the Judges Act amending bill stay over until the fall session?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is rather contentious.


Alphonse Fournier: The bill was
announced and I have to say that the government has decided to proceed with it.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. June 26. 1951